Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93501 Case Number: LCR14222 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: IRISH RAIL - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dismissal of a worker.
Recommendation:
5. This case was submitted to the Court under Section 20(1) of
the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. It has also been the subject
of an internal disciplinary investigation by the agreed machinery.
Both parties agree that this investigation was carried out in a
proper and fair manner at all stages.
Having considered the written submissions and on the basis of the
evidence presented, the Court does not recommend concession of the
Union's claim for re-instatement.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93501 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14222
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: IRISH RAIL
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dismissal of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was employed as a road freight driver on
the newspaper delivery contract between Dublin and Galway. On the
8th January, 1993 he was observed by Management making an
unscheduled stop along this route, resulting in the
misappropriation of 19 newspapers. The worker was suspended from
duty and following a Company investigation under the agreed
disciplinary procedures he was dismissed with effect from 12th
February, 1993. The Union claimed that the worker was unfairly
dismissed and sought to refer the issue to the Labour Relations
Commission. Management objected to such a referral. On the 8th
July, 1993 the Union referred the dispute 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 Court
investigated the dispute on the 12th October, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker concerned had 27 years service with the Company
and a good work record. The delivery of newspapers is work of
an exacting pressurising nature and deliveries on time are
essential. Workers relied on the use of complimentary papers,
which were issued to various people, to expedite deliveries.
Following the reduction in the number of complimentaries the
worker had to devise another method and newspapers were
removed from customers' deliveries. The worker intended to
replace these papers on the return journey.
2. The worker gained nothing from the transactions and in
fact incurred a financial loss. He has given significant
co-operation to the Company over the years, to the extent of
working his annual leave to facilitate the Company.
3. The Company's action has had a devastating effect on the
the worker, who, because of his age, has little prospect of
obtaining employment. The Union is seeking the reinstatement
of the worker and compensation for his loss of earnings.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker committed a very serious offence and admitted
this offence when confronted. His action was putting the
newspaper contract in jeopardy. The Newspaper Companies had
on many occasions outlined their concern at the number of
newspapers missing daily from deliveries. This concern was
conveyed to staff and unions at meetings and in writing. The
Newspaper Companies reduced the number of complimentary papers
from 36 to 21 because of the level of missing papers and
requested the Company to carry out periodic checks to ensure
that only papers marked "complimentary" were given out.
2. The worker's case was processed fully through the agreed
disciplinary procedure which included a disciplinary hearing,
an appeals board hearing, an admisericordiam appeal to Head of
Department and a meeting with the Head of Department on the
26th March, 1993. His dismissal was upheld. The Company must
uphold the integrity of agreed disciplinary procedures. The
Labour Court has endorsed this position in numerous
recommendations.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. This case was submitted to the Court under Section 20(1) of
the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. It has also been the subject
of an internal disciplinary investigation by the agreed machinery.
Both parties agree that this investigation was carried out in a
proper and fair manner at all stages.
Having considered the written submissions and on the basis of the
evidence presented, the Court does not recommend concession of the
Union's claim for re-instatement.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_______________________
19th October, 1993. Deputy Chairman.
T.O'D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.