Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93373 Case Number: LCR14188 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: SABREWATCH LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
5. The Court considered the question of jurisdiction and advised
the Company that the matter was correctly before the Court and was
appropriate for consideration under the provisions of Section
20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
The Court has considered all of the views expressed by the parties
in their oral and written submissions. The Court finds that the
manner in which the claimant was dealt with was unacceptable and
contrary to good industrial relations practice. The Court, in the
light of all the circumstances of the case considers that the
claimant should be compensated in the amount of #1,500.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93373 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14188
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: SABREWATCH LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY EUGENE F. COLLINS, SOLICITORS)
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is engaged in the business of providing security
services and is the sole provider of these services to the Marks &
Spencer Group. Its headquarters and training centre are in West
Sussex, England. The Company employs a staff of approximately 350
of which 10 are based in the Republic of Ireland. The worker was
employed as a security guard with the Marks & Spencer branches at
Mary Street and Grafton Street, Dublin. He was employed with the
Company from the 26th of May, 1992 until his dismissal on the 31st
of March, 1993.
The worker was transfered from the Grafton Street branch to the
Mary Street branch arising from Marks & Spencer's management's
alleged dissatisfaction with aspects of his performance. An
incident had occurred concerning a shoplifter following which it
was alleged that the worker had shown signs of cowardice. The
worker disputed the claim that he had performed unsatisfactorily.
On the 29th of March, 1993, the worker sought permission to absent
himself from his duties on the following day, in order to attend
hospital with a severe sore throat. Management arranged for cover
for him on the same afternoon (the 29th) instead, and it was
agreed that he would work until 2.45 p.m. before departing.
During the morning of the 29th the worker expressed a wish to go
to hospital during that morning and to return to work in the
afternoon. Management advised the worker that if he were sick, he
should not return to work in the afternoon. A disagreement arose
between the worker and his deputy supervisor and the worker left
the premises.
The following morning (the 30th), the worker was suspended by the
Area Manager and was advised to ring the Company's headquarters in
England, on the following day, concerning the matter. The worker
spoke by 'phone with the Company's Personnel Manager at
approximately 10 a.m. on the following morning and was advised by
her of his summary dismissal. He was informed that his dismissal
was a result of "gross misconduct" perpetrated by him when he
"left his place of work without permission" and when he was
"abusive" to his supervisor.
The worker believes that he was dismissed for personal reasons.
He contends that the deputy supervisor "did not like him", was
"picking on him unfairly" and did not want him working there as he
was not "as big as some of the other lads". The worker referred
the dispute to the Rights Commissioner's service but the Company
was not prepared to attend an investigation. The worker then
referred the dispute to the Labour Court on the 21st of June,
1993 in accordance with the provisions of Section 20(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court investigated the
dispute on the 27th of August, 1993. At the Court hearing,
Solicitors for the Company questioned the jurisdiction of the
Court concerning the hearing of the worker's complaint.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company's complaints about the worker's 'capability'
are unjustified. The incident concerning the shoplifter was
satisfactorily handled by him when he ushered the shoplifter
out of the shop, without using undue force and causing as
little commotion as possible. It appears that politeness on
the part of the worker (which is required by the Company's
rules) is being construed by the Company as cowardice.
2. The worker wished to attend the hospital in the morning
because he knew that it would be less busy then than in the
afternoon. When he expressed this wish, the Deputy Supervisor
expressed doubts about his illness. The conversation became
heated and the Deputy Supervisor became aggressive and
abusive. The Deputy Supervisor began to shout at the worker
who responded by walking off the premises.
3. There were other more serious instances of gross
misconduct (details supplied to the Court) which occurred
previously, involving other employees who were not dismissed
subsequently.
4. In a telephone conversation with the Personnel Manager, in
England, on the morning of the 31st of March, the worker
strongly refuted allegations made by management concerning his
behaviour. There was no full investigation carried out into
the dispute. There was no opportunity afforded to the worker
to defend his position in the simultaneous presence of his
supervisor and senior management.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Dissatisfaction was expressed by the Management of Marks &
Spencer in Grafton Street, about the worker's suitability for
the job when he allegedly showed cowardice when confronted
with a shoplifter. After his transfer to the Mary Street
branch, management there expressed concern about his
capability and maturity. He was placed on night shift and
after he expressed his dissatisfaction with this he was given
a final chance working on the dayshift, in March, 1993.
2. The worker was guilty of gross misconduct when he left his
post, without cover on the morning of the 29th of March. He
was also guilty of gross misconduct when he became extremely
abusive to his superiors. When he left his post, he was twice
stopped by the Deputy Supervisor who asked him if he realised
what he was doing. The worker replied that he did not care
and departed.
3. It was made clear to the worker by the Personnel Manager
(on the 31st of March by telephone) that he was dismissed
following acts of gross misconduct. He was advised that he
had the right to appeal his dismissal. He failed, however, to
follow internal Company procedures and make any appeal.
4. The Deputy Supervisor did not use abusive language in his
dealings with the worker.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court considered the question of jurisdiction and advised
the Company that the matter was correctly before the Court and was
appropriate for consideration under the provisions of Section
20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
The Court has considered all of the views expressed by the parties
in their oral and written submissions. The Court finds that the
manner in which the claimant was dealt with was unacceptable and
contrary to good industrial relations practice. The Court, in the
light of all the circumstances of the case considers that the
claimant should be compensated in the amount of #1,500.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
_______________________
6th September, 1993. Deputy Chairman.
M.K./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.