Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95476 Case Number: LCR14969 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: SPRING GROVE SERVICES (IRELAND) LIMITED (Represented by THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - A WORKER;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
The Court was presented with a conflict of evidence.
On the evidence before the Court, the Company may have had reason
to dismiss the claimant but the manner of the dismissal was less
than satisfactory.
Taking into account all of the information before it, the Court
does not recommend reinstatement, but recommends that the employer
pay the claimant a sum equivalent to 4 weeks' gross salary in full
and final settlement of this case.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Pierce Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95476 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14969
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
SPRING GROVE SERVICES (IRELAND) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
The worker was initially employed for a short time by the
Company in October, 1993. He was re-employed on 12th
January, 1994, and worked as a general operative.
The worker was involved in a dispute with a fellow worker in
June, 1994. After discussion with the Union, Management
agreed to suspend the worker with full pay to defuse the
situation. The worker was subsequently reinstated on 29th
June, 1994, after being issued with a final written warning.
The worker was requested to work overtime on 2nd July, 1994,
and agreed to work from 8.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon. He alleges
that he went to get a drink of water and was followed by the
Chargehand. He asked the Chargehand if there was any
problem but received no answer. He alleges that the
Chargehand followed him back to the workplace and then
claimed that he had been violently attacked by the worker.
The Chargehand called the Gardai, who arrived and advised the
worker to go home when he finished his work. Following a
meeting with Management the worker was dismissed on 4th July,
1994. The worker denies that any incident took place between
himself and the Chargehand.
The Union referred the dispute to the Labour Court on 16th
August, 1995, in accordance with Section 20(1), Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on
26th October, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
1. No incident of any kind took place between the worker and the
Chargehand. There were no witnesses to the alleged incident.
The Chargehand had been following the worker all morning and
"niggling" him.
2. The Chargehand had no visible injuries although he claims
that he was violently attacked and hit his head when he fell.
He made no report of the alleged incident to the Union and
subsequently left the Company's employment. The worker was
dismissed because of false information given to Management.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The worker was involved in a previous violent incident in
June, 1994, which resulted in him being suspended with full
pay. On 2nd July, 1994, the worker physically attacked and
verbally threatened the Chargehand. The Chargehand was
absent from work for a number of weeks due to the injury
sustained.
2. The worker's overall record was unsatisfactory with regard to
his attendance, his attitude to his supervisors and his
absence from work. The Company had given the worker every
opportunity to improve his performance in work but had no
alternative except to dismiss him following the incident on
2nd July, 1994.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court was presented with a conflict of evidence.
On the evidence before the Court, the Company may have had reason
to dismiss the claimant but the manner of the dismissal was less
than satisfactory.
Taking into account all of the information before it, the Court
does not recommend reinstatement, but recommends that the employer
pay the claimant a sum equivalent to 4 weeks' gross salary in full
and final settlement of this case.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
20th November, 1995 Finbarr Flood
C.O.N./A.K. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.