Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93672 Case Number: LCR14337 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: LINX PROJECT - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court is
satisfied that the claimant's dismissal was unfair in that he was
not given an opportunity to present his case to the Management
Committee who made the decision to dismiss.
Taking into account the nature of the employment and the voluntary
aspect of the organisation the Court recommends payment of a sum
of #100 as compensation and that he be considered for future
similar FAS Programmes.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93672 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14337
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
LINX PROJECT
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Linx Project is a voluntary organisation set up in
1986 to cater for the needy living alone in the Ballymun
area. Since 1986, it has operated under various State-
sponsored work schemes. It has no permanent funding other
than that from its own fund-raising activities. The centre
provides meals, washing and recreation facilities, holidays
and basic counselling.
2. The worker concerned commenced employment (20 hours
weekly) with the Linx Project on 2nd November, 1992, under
the Community Enterprise Development Programme. The worker's
employment was terminated on 24th February, 1993. Under the
scheme the worker would have expected his employment to last
for one year. Management claim that the worker's behaviour
towards a colleague on 24th February, 1993, was unacceptable.
The worker rejected the claim.
3. The Union referred the dispute to the Labour Court for
investigation on 19th November, 1993, under Section 20(1) of
the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by
the Court's recommendation. The dispute had been the
subject of a conciliation conference at the Labour Relations
Commission in September, 1993, but no agreement was reached.
Management did not agree to refer the dispute to the Labour
Court in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on
17th January, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The incident of the 24th February, 1993 did not justify
the worker's dismissal.
2. The worker was not interviewed in relation to the
incident by the Management Committee who took the decision to
dismiss him.
3. Management's explanation for the worker's dismissal is
unacceptable. If Management were dissatisfied with the
events of 24th February, 1993, an investigation should have
taken place in line with normal procedures.
4. The worker's dismissal caused him considerable
inconvenience. He is unemployed and debarred from joining
further FAS programmes. The worker received no unemployment
benefit for one week following his dismissal.
5. Management has treated the worker unfairly. He should
be compensated for his loss of employment and recommended for
participation in future FAS programmes.
LINX'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was involved in a serious incident on 24th
February, 1993 in which he used obscene language and
threatened a colleague. His behaviour disturbed many of the
members as the person he attacked was highly respected and
trusted.
2. The Management Committee considered evidence on behalf
of both parties involved in the incident and concluded that
the worker's behaviour was unacceptable.
3. Linx has operated State-sponsored work schemes since
1986 and has an excellent record with FAS.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court is
satisfied that the claimant's dismissal was unfair in that he was
not given an opportunity to present his case to the Management
Committee who made the decision to dismiss.
Taking into account the nature of the employment and the voluntary
aspect of the organisation the Court recommends payment of a sum
of #100 as compensation and that he be considered for future
similar FAS Programmes.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
8th February, 1994 Evelyn Owens
F.B./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.