Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95188 Case Number: LCR14809 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: AER RIANTA - and - MANDATE |
Alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
Recommendation:
The Court finds that the manner in which the dismissal of the
claimant was effected left much to be desired.
Accordingly, the Court considers the claimant was treated unfairly
and recommends that he be paid compensation in the amount of #100.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Pierce Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95188 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14809
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
AER RIANTA
AND
MANDATE
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The worker concerned commenced employment with the
Company in May 1994, as a casual employee. He was on
the casual panel which was due to expire on the 31st
October, 1994. He worked as a merchandiser in the
commercial department at Dublin Airport and was employed
on a six month contract. The worker was suspended on
the 6th August, 1994 following his late return from a
meal break. Subsequently a disciplinary hearing was
held and the worker was dismissed on the 8th August,
1994. The Union appealed the Company's decision and an
appeal meeting was held on the 14th September, 1994.
The Company reiterated its decision to dismiss the
worker.
2. The Union claimed that the worker was unfairly dismissed
and sought to refer the dispute to a Rights Commissioner
for investigation. The Company objected to such an
investigation. On the 13th March, 1995 the Union
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. A Labour
Court hearing was held on the 9th June, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union accepts that the worker had a number of late
attendances prior to the incident leading to his
dismissal. However, he gave Management valid reasons
for those lates while some others are in dispute.
(Details supplied to the Court).
2. The worker received an unfavourable assessment following
an incident when he was observed on the floor talking to
two colleagues. The rest of the workforce was assessed
at a different time.
3. At the time of his dismissal the worker was not given
adequate opportunity to consult with his Union and have
a union official of his choice to represent him. The
Union contends that the decision to dismiss the worker
was taken on the night that he was suspended. The
Company gave scant regard to Company/Union agreements
designed to cover events of this nature.
4. The worker received only one formal verbal warning. In
accordance with procedures a series of written warnings
normally follow a verbal warning. There were no written
warnings. The worker was dismissed before all stages of
the disciplinary procedure were exhausted.
5. The worker was unfairly dismissed. He is entitled to
compensation for loss of earnings and personal distress
caused as a result of the Company's action.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was dismissed following an incident on the
6th August, 1994 when he returned one and a quarter
hour's late from a break. This was a very busy time, on
a Saturday night during the peak Summer period. It is
essential that a fast and efficient service is provided
to customers and the Company must be able to depend on
its staff to provide this service. During the period
of his employment the worker received a number of
warnings from supervisors regarding his timekeeping.
2. An assessment of the worker's performance was undertaken
by a senior merchandiser in July 1994. He was advised
that his performance must improve if he was to remain on
the casual panel. The issue of the returning late from
breaks had also been specifically mentioned. His
performance did not improve.
3. The Company was left with no alternative but to dismiss
the worker. He was treated fairly and in accordance
with established disciplinary procedures.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court finds that the manner in which the dismissal of the
claimant was effected left much to be desired.
Accordingly, the Court considers the claimant was treated unfairly
and recommends that he be paid compensation in the amount of #100.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
27th June, 1995 Tom McGrath
T.O'D./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.