Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94451 Case Number: LCR14625 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: KEYPAK LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
The Court is satisfied, on the basis of the submissions made to
it, that the claimant was not unfairly dismissed and accordingly
does not find in favour of the claimant.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94451 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14625
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
KEYPAK LIMITED
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company operates a meat processing plant at Clonee, Co.
Meath and employs 170 workers. The worker concerned
commenced employment in September, 1990. He was dismissed
from the Company on the 4th March, 1994. The worker claimed
that his dismissal was unfair and sought to refer the dispute
to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and
recommendation. The Company objected to such an
investigation. On the 11th August , 1994 the worker 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 5th December, 1994.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker did not have a pair of overalls at the
commencement of his shift. The storeman was not
available so the worker forced open a locker seeking
overalls. No damage was done to the locker. The worker
had previously complained to the storeman that overalls
were not left in his locker. Other workers in the
Company, who were left without overalls, also opened
lockers to obtain them.
2. The employee concerned had a good work record and had
not been the subject of disciplinary proceedings in the
past. He got little opportunity to explain his position
and was arbitrarily and unfairly dismissed.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker concerned was observed by other workers
interfering with a locker. The matter was reported to
management and the worker's Trade Union Official was
informed. The worker concerned admitted forcing open
Company property. The worker was given ample
opportunity to explain his actions but did not do so.
He was guilty of gross misconduct which warranted
instant dismissal.
2. It is not acceptable for any worker to interfere with
the locker of another employee. Lockers contain not
only equipment belonging to the Company but personal
belongings may also be stored in them.
3. Given the circumstances the Company had no option but to
dismiss the worker.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is satisfied, on the basis of the submissions made to
it, that the claimant was not unfairly dismissed and accordingly
does not find in favour of the claimant.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
13th December, 1994 Evelyn Owens
T.O'D./D.T. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.