Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95119 Case Number: LCR14760 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: BUS EIREANN - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
In this case the Court is presented with a direct conflict of
evidence in relation to the incident which resulted in the
dismissal of the driver on 23rd November, 1994. The Court
considered the written and oral submissions of the parties and on
balance believes that the Company acted reasonably in reaching its
conclusion as to identity of the person responsible for the
incident.
Furthermore the Court accepts that the Company followed the agreed
procedures in reaching its decision. However, given the
seriousness of the decision for the claimant and taking into
account the particular circumstances surrounding this case, the
Court would propose that the period from 23rd November, 1994 to
date of acceptance of this Recommendation be considered as a
period of suspension. On the driver's resumption to work he be
advised that he undertakes a further 12 months probation and if
there are no further problems that he be considered for employment
on a permanent basis.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95119 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14760
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
BUS EIREANN
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The worker concerned commenced employment with the
Company, initially as a temporary seasonal driver, from
July to October, 1993. He was re-employed on the 7th
March, 1994 to fill a permanent staff vacancy as a bus
driver and was on a twelve month probationary period.
On the 23rd November, 1994 an incident occurred in the
garage of the Galway depot which involved damage to two
Company buses. The damage was caused to the buses
during shunting for refuelling. The worker concerned
denied either driving one of the buses or causing the
damage. The Company carried out an investigation of the
accident. It was undertaken by the District Manager who
recommended that the worker be dismissed. This decision
was appealed by the Union to the Area Manager but
following a further investigation the decision to
dismiss the worker was upheld. The worker was dismissed
on the 6th February, 1995.
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. Subsequently 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. The Court investigated the
dispute on the 13th March, 1995. A letter
recommendation was issued on the 9th May, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Having covered a scheduled service to Ballina using bus
No. KR82 the worker concerned returned to Galway from
Headford and drove this bus to the concourse parking
area in the bus station and parked the bus in Bay 3. He
was advised by his inspector that bus KR82 was due for
refuelling and subsequently drove bus KR82 to the garage
for refuelling. He parked the bus and went on his meal
break. During this time the worker concerned, in the
company of another bus driver, was asked by the
Inspector if he had driven another bus, KR81 from the
garage. The Inspector advised that bus KR81 had been
involved in an accident. The worker stated to the
Inspector that he had not driven this bus.
2. At subsequent investigations the worker reiterated that
the had not driven bus KR81 and that he did not know how
the accident had occurred. The Company has treated the
worker in a most unfair manner by falsely accusing him
of damaging a vehicle. The Inspector who claimed that
he saw the worker driving bus KR81 made an error. This
was quite possible given the appalling weather
conditions at the time and the large number of buses in
the garage area.
3. There were no witnesses to the actual accident. The
Company has no concrete evidence on which to justify its
claim to dismiss the worker and its decision to dismiss
him in these circumstances is unsafe and unsound. He
had a good employment record and was nearing the end of
his probation. The Union contends that he did not
receive fair and impartial treatment and should be
re-instated as a driver with the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company carried out a detailed and through
investigation into the accident. It is satisfied beyond
doubt that the worker concerned was observed driving the
damaged vehicle onto the station forecourt shortly after
the damage to the buses is known to have occurred.
2. The investigations were carried out in accordance with
the disciplinary procedures agreed with the Union.
3. The worker concerned, during the period of his
employment in 1993, was involved in two accidents
(details supplied to the Court). He received a recorded
reprimand in relation to one of these accidents.
4. While the worker consistently denied any involvement in
causing the accident, the Company is completely
satisfied, having interviewed the Inspector on duty and
numerous other workers, that the worker concerned had
caused the damage to the bus.
5. The Company is satisfied that the worker was not being
truthful in his account of the events relating to the
accident. It could no longer have trust and confidence
in him. Therefore, he was not suitable for appointment
to the permanent staff. The Company was left with no
alternative but to dismiss the worker.
RECOMMENDATION:
In this case the Court is presented with a direct conflict of
evidence in relation to the incident which resulted in the
dismissal of the driver on 23rd November, 1994. The Court
considered the written and oral submissions of the parties and on
balance believes that the Company acted reasonably in reaching its
conclusion as to identity of the person responsible for the
incident.
Furthermore the Court accepts that the Company followed the agreed
procedures in reaching its decision. However, given the
seriousness of the decision for the claimant and taking into
account the particular circumstances surrounding this case, the
Court would propose that the period from 23rd November, 1994 to
date of acceptance of this Recommendation be considered as a
period of suspension. On the driver's resumption to work he be
advised that he undertakes a further 12 months probation and if
there are no further problems that he be considered for employment
on a permanent basis.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
18th May, 1995 Finbarr Flood
T.O'D./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.