Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93332 Case Number: LCR14181 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: DUBLIN CORPORATION - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Alleged constructive dismissal.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court
does not find that grounds have been established to justify it
recommending concession of this claim. Accordingly the claim
fails.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93332 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14181
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1)
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: DUBLIN CORPORATION
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged constructive dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Corporation
on 1st October, 1984 in the Public Libraries Department. On 17th
July, 1986, he was transferred to the Cleansing Section as a
general operative. He resigned from his position with effect from
1st July, 1991. Following his resignation the worker applied to
the Corporation for reinstatement but his application was refused.
On 18th May, 1993, 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 12th August, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker has given seven and a half years good service
to the Corporation and during the course of his employment his
supervisors had no complaints regarding his work in a gang
situation.
2. At the time of his resignation the worker was suffering
from depression.
3. Within a matter of weeks of his resignation the worker
realised his mistake and immediately applied for
reinstatement.
3. 4. The Corporation has re-employed former employees on
numerous occasions and it is not unreasonable in the
circumstances for the worker concerned to be placed on the
panel for re-employment.
CORPORATION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker resigned voluntarily from his position.
2. The worker informed his inspector that he was resigning
to take up employment abroad. His inspector advised him to
re-consider his decision to resign.
3. At the time of the worker's resignation, staff in the
Personnel Section advised him of the gravity of his proposed
course of action. His statement that he had secured
employment in England lessened their concern regarding his
actions.
4. The Corporation is satisfied that the worker resigned
voluntarily from his employment and that the Corporation was
fair and circumspect in dealing with the resignation. In the
light of a report received from the Cleansing Section that the
worker's service had not been generally satisfactory the
Corporation is not prepared to consider him for re-employment.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court
does not find that grounds have been established to justify it
recommending concession of this claim. Accordingly the claim
fails.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
1st September, 1993 Kevin Heffernan
F.B./U.S. ----------------
Chairman
NOTE:
Enquiries concerning the Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.