Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93687 Case Number: AD9416 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: POWER SUPERMARKETS - and - A WORKER;IRISH NATIONAL UNION OF VINTNERS', GROCERS' AND;ALLIED TRADES ASSISTANTS |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. BC256/93 concerning the alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court did not
find grounds to justify upholding the Union's appeal. Accordingly
the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation stands.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93687 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD1694
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9),
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: POWER SUPERMARKETS
and
A WORKER
(Represented by Irish National Union of Vintners', Grocers' and
Allied Trades Assistants)
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. BC256/93 concerning the alleged unfair
dismissal of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The worker commenced employment as a pro-rata sales
assistant in the fruit and vegetables department of Crazy
Prices, Santry on 9th October, 1992, and his employment was
terminated on 2nd July, 1993.
2. In 1993, the Company became aware that the worker had
sustained injuries as a result of an accident when working for
a previous employer. On 18th June, 1993, the worker was
suspended from duty on the grounds that he had intentionally
completed his job application form in a dishonest and
misleading fashion. A meeting took place between the worker,
his union official and the Company on the 24th June, 1993.
The worker was dismissed from his employment on the 2nd July,
1993.
3. The Union referred the matter to the Rights Commissioner
and a hearing was held on the 17th November, 1993. The Rights
Commissioner in his recommendation No. BC256/93 issued on 30th
November, 1993 recommended:-
"In the light of the above I must hold that the
employer did not act unfairly on the date in
question in terminating the worker's employment
since this act of concealment destroyed the bond of
trust which should exist between the employee and
the employer".
(The worker's name was mentioned in the recommendation).
The Union appealed the Rights Commissioner's recommendation to the
Labour Court on 13th December, 1993. The Court heard the appeal
on 12th January, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company has not proved nor does the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation clearly establish the case that
the worker acted intentionally in a dishonest manner.
2. The worker never intended to mislead the Company and he
made a valid and honest declaration based on the requirements
requested from him by the questions.
3. The only legitimate concern the Company can have is that
based on the information given to them by the worker, he is in
a physically competent condition to carry out the duties
required of him.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. By his actions the worker destroyed the bond of trust
between him and his employer which is essential in any retail
operation.
2. The worker made a false declaration on the application
form by failing to include reference to his serious accident
in his former employment.
3. The worker deceived the Company into believing he was
fully fit for the work involved.
4. The declaration on the application form clearly
indicates that dismissal may result if the completed form is
found to be false or misleading in any material particular.
DECISION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court did not
find grounds to justify upholding the Union's appeal. Accordingly
the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation stands.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
3rd March, 1994 Kevin Heffernan
P.O.C./U.S. _______________
ChairmanN