Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93182 Case Number: LCR14091 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: MOPROD LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the views of the parties as
expressed in their oral and written submissions finds that given
all the circumstances described the Company did not treat the
employee concerned unfairly.
Accordingly the employee's claim that he was dismissed unfairly
fails.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93182 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14091
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: MOPROD LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE SOCIETY OF THE IRISH MOTOR INDUSTRY)
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company which imports and distributes motor parts and
accessories, employs 13 people. In June, 1992, the worker
concerned commenced employment with the Company in a temporary
compacity doing holiday relief work in the goods inwards
department under the supervision of the goods inwards supervisor.
The worker was due to return to school in September, 1992 at the
end of the summer holiday work. In August, 1992, a vacancy arose
in the Company for a parts picker. The worker concerned applied
for the vacancy and his application was successful. In November,
1992, the worker was dismissed. The Company claims that the
worker concerned is not suitable for employment as parts picker.
The worker rejected the claim.
The worker referred the matter to the Labour Court under Section
20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and agreed to be
bound by the Court's recommendation. The Labour Court hearing
took place on 30th April, 1993.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker concerned was unfairly dismissed by the Company
when he reported for work following illness which required him
to be hospitalised for 1 week.
2. The worker while excepting that some mistakes were made
was prepared to double check the orders before sending them
out.
3. On the days the errors occurred the workers who were meant
to spot-check the orders were busy on other duties.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company distributes a wide range of parts and all
parts are listed and stocked by code numbers. Orders from
customers are based on the code numbers and the parts picker
is required to retrieve the parts corresponding to the number
from the appropriate bin location. The picker does not
necessarily need to recognise the actual part required but
must ensure accuracy in obtaining the item with the required
code number.
2. Mistakes can be made but these mistakes must be kept to an
absolute minimum as a mistake of one digit in a code number
can produce a totally different item. The industry is
extremely competitive and such errors can lead to a loss of
business.
3. On 2nd November, 1992, one of the Company's biggest
customers complained that his order contained a number of
errors. On checking the order 22 errors were discovered. It
was also discovered on the same day that another order for a
different branch of the same company had five errors.
4. Management explained to the worker that the job is based
on code numbers and the importance of accuracy in selecting
the parts. It was suggested to the worker that he introduce
the discipline of double checking the orders. It was also
suggested that if he had problems with his eyes that he should
see an eye-specialist.
5. Following further spot checks more errors were found and
the worker was warned that the Company's business depended on
accuracy and that the problems could not continue. Further
errors occurred but before management had an opportunity to
discuss the matter further the worker was absent on sick
leave.
6. When the worker returned from sick leave management
outlined the Company's difficulties and the unsuitability of a
person who misreads numbers in a job which is based on
accuracy.
7. The Company has the height of regard for the worker
concerned. He was upset by his work problems and accepted
responsibility for the mistakes.
8. The Company had no wish to add further to the worker's
upset or to undermine the worker by dismissing him. The
Company would be happy to recommend him to other prospective
employers.
9. The reality is that the worker concerned is unfortunately
not suitable for employment as a parts picker.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the views of the parties as
expressed in their oral and written submissions finds that given
all the circumstances described the Company did not treat the
employee concerned unfairly.
Accordingly the employee's claim that he was dismissed unfairly
fails.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
____________________
26th May, 1993. Deputy Chairman
F.B./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.