Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95368 Case Number: LCR14852 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: HEATHCOURT CLEANING SERVICES (THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - A WORKER;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Termination of employment.
Recommendation:
The Court, having considered the views expressed by the parties in
their oral and written submissions, finds that the manner in which
the suspension of the employee was handled left much to be
desired.
The Court, however, takes the view that the employee was not
dismissed and, by his actions, terminated his own employment.
Accordingly, the Court does not recommend concession for the
Union's claim.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Pierce Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95368 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14852
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
HEATHCOURT CLEANING SERVICES
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
Termination of employment.
BACKGROUND:
The worker was employed by the Company as a contract cleaning
operative in March, 1994. He worked on a number of contract
sites and was supplied with Company transport.
The worker claims that in December, 1994, he was approached
by a representative of the Health and Safety Authority who
advised him not to work on high ladders which were not
properly secured. In February, 1995, the worker was
requested to clean at a height which necessitated the use of
a high ladder. He requested assistance in securing the
ladder. The worker claims that he was instructed by a
manager to complete the work by himself.
The worker refused to complete the work and claims that he
was dismissed immediately, with the words "you will never
work for Heathcourt again".
The Company maintains that on the day of the alleged
dismissal, Friday, 24th February, 1995, the worker was
instructed to finish work that he had begun the previous day.
He complained to the Managing Director that he was unfit for
work. He also advised the Managing Director about the
incident with the Health and Safety Authority representative
and that he had signed a document given to him by the
representative. The Managing Director claims that he
suspended the worker, pending a decision on his future.
The Company claims that on the same day the worker telephoned
the office and requested his P45 and any money due to him.
The Company understood from this that the worker had
resigned.
The worker referred the dispute to the Labour Court under
Section 20(1), Industrial Relations Act, 1969, on 15th June,
1995. A Labour Court hearing took place on 24th July, 1995
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The worker was employed by the Company for 11 months. The
Company did not consider the option of suspending him or
issuing a warning.
2. The worker's decision not to climb an unsecured ladder was
reasonable, particularly following the warning from the
Health and Safety representative. The worker was not
informed by the Company of its safety policy. He did not
tender his resignation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The worker signed a contract of employment which stipulated
that he "must be completely flexible and must be prepared to
undertake such work as may be assigned". The worker
consistently refused to work overtime on Mondays. He was
issued with a warning letter in September, 1994.
2. The worker was reprimanded for signing a document in
December, 1994, and for not reporting the incident to the
Company. He reacted by being abusive to the Managing
Director. The Health and Safety Authority did not contact
the Company regarding the incident. The worker was not
dismissed. The Company considered that he had resigned when
he requested his P.45 and money.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered the views expressed by the parties in
their oral and written submissions, finds that the manner in which
the suspension of the employee was handled left much to be
desired.
The Court, however, takes the view that the employee was not
dismissed and, by his actions, terminated his own employment.
Accordingly, the Court does not recommend concession for the
Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
3rd August, 1995 Tom McGrath
C.O.N./A.K. ----------------
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Ciaran O'Neill Court Secretary.