Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9586 Case Number: AD9529 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: SOUTH INNER CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION (S.I.C.C.D.A.) (THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - A WORKER |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. DC176/94.
Recommendation:
The Court has considered the arguments, both written and oral, put
forward in this appeal to the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation.
The Court is conscious that the absence of a structured
relationship such as would exist in a formal employment situation
creates difficulties for both parties who operate under
considerable operational pressures to achieve their objectives.
The Court was faced with serious conflict of evidence which was
not resolved at the hearing.
It appears to the Court that a personality conflict between the
appellant and his new supervisor was at the root of the problem.
The Court notes that at the hearing the appellant indicated that
he did not seek either re-instatement or compensation and sought
only to clear his name. The Court considers this reasonable and
was impressed by the various references he submitted in support of
his position. Accordingly, the Court recommends that the Board
gives the appellant a suitable reference.
In addressing the Rights Commissioner's actual recommendation the
Court, noting that the Board are now putting in place structures
which could enable problems such as the one which is the subject
of this appeal to be dealt with and also taking into account the
redress sought by the appellant, upholds paragraph one of the
recommendation.
The second paragraph is merely a statement of opinion and the
Court does not uphold that part of the recommendation.
The Court so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Pierce Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9586 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD2995
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
SOUTH INNER CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION (S.I.C.C.D.A.)
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No.
DC176/94.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Association is a voluntary body which looks after the
social and economic needs of special needs groups in the
Liberties area of Dublin. The worker joined the Association
in November, 1993. The Association now employs 19 workers.
Some of its training courses are sponsored by FAS.
In February, 1994, the manager of the project resigned and on
21st February, 1994, the worker concerned was asked to fill
the roll of acting supervisor until a new manager was
appointed. The worker was one of a number of employees who
applied for the post. On 14th April, 1994, he was informed
that another worker had been appointed to the post, starting
on 25th April, 1994.
The Association claims that, following the appointment of the
new manager, a number of incidents occurred involving the
worker which left the Association with no choice but to
dismiss him on 30th September, 1994. These included working
in the supervisor's office until 27th April, 1994, refusing
to hand over the keys of the premises, taking the newsletter
to the printers without the consent of the Board and writing
to FAS directly concerning these grievances.
The worker maintains that he was unfairly dismissed. The
dispute was referred to the Rights Commissioner and a hearing
took place on 23rd November, 1994. The Rights Commissioner's
recommendation follows:-
Findings and Recommendation
I am satisfied from the evidence presented at the
hearing that the worker's conduct and attitude to his
immediate superiors in the Association between 25th
April, 1994 and the termination of his employment was
disruptive and uncooperative and that as he made no
realistic effort to alter his stance, he has no
substantive grounds for any redress, in that regard.
The fact that the claimant may have had some expectation
of being appointed to the Supervisory position in which
he had acted in a temporary capacity for a couple of
months previously does not, in my view, justify in any
way his subsequent behaviour but also begs the question
whether or not, Community employments like S.I.C.C.D.A.
should consider seeking appropriate indemnity against
claims of this nature, when recruiting trainees for
specific periods of temporary employment, in the future.
I therefore recommend that the worker's claim fails.
(The worker was named in the above recommendation).
The worker appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on
20th January, 1995, under Section 13(9) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on
15th March, 1995, (the earliest date suitable to the
parties).
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker concerned and another worker were preparing
the Association's newsletter. They needed the
supervisor's office to work in as the other office was
too noisy. The worker was told that he could use the
supervisor's office. He was not requested to hand over
the keys of the office.
2. Copies of the newsletter were given to two members of
the Board before it went to the printers. The worker
did not receive any verbal warnings from the
Association. He received a written warning on 14th
July, 1994 at which the Board was present. A number of
charges were made against him. He later requested
information from the Board regarding the charges but was
given no reasonable response. As a result he wrote to
FAS seeking justice.
3. A number of workers have supplied statements to the
Court stating that the worker concerned has at all times
been helpful and co-operative.
ASSOCIATION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. When the new manager arrived in work on 25th April,
1994, the worker was still in occupancy in her office.
He had been informed of her appointment and the date she
was due to start work. The worker refused to hand over
the keys of the premises until requested to do so on 3rd
May, 1994.
2. The office diary containing important dates and
information was removed from the supervisor's office and
not handed over to the new manager. The Association's
newsletter was sent to the printers without the prior
assent of the Board.
3. The worker was given a number of verbal warnings
regarding his attitude and behaviour to the new manager.
Writing to FAS was a breach of procedures which had been
made clear to the worker. The worker's behaviour
between 25th April, 1994, to 30th September, 1994, left
the Association with no choice but to dismiss him.
DECISION:
The Court has considered the arguments, both written and oral, put
forward in this appeal to the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation.
The Court is conscious that the absence of a structured
relationship such as would exist in a formal employment situation
creates difficulties for both parties who operate under
considerable operational pressures to achieve their objectives.
The Court was faced with serious conflict of evidence which was
not resolved at the hearing.
It appears to the Court that a personality conflict between the
appellant and his new supervisor was at the root of the problem.
The Court notes that at the hearing the appellant indicated that
he did not seek either re-instatement or compensation and sought
only to clear his name. The Court considers this reasonable and
was impressed by the various references he submitted in support of
his position. Accordingly, the Court recommends that the Board
gives the appellant a suitable reference.
In addressing the Rights Commissioner's actual recommendation the
Court, noting that the Board are now putting in place structures
which could enable problems such as the one which is the subject
of this appeal to be dealt with and also taking into account the
redress sought by the appellant, upholds paragraph one of the
recommendation.
The second paragraph is merely a statement of opinion and the
Court does not uphold that part of the recommendation.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
6th April, 1995 Evelyn Owens
C.O'N./D.T. ____________
Chairman