Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95638 Case Number: LCR15050 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: BWG FOODS LIMITED (Represented by IBEC) - and - MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Dismissal, seeking reinstatement.
Recommendation:
Taking into account all of the information before it, the Court
does not recommend reinstatement in this case, but does recommend
that the Company pay the claimant a sum, the equivalent of six
months salary in recognition of his long service with the Company.
Division: Mr Flood Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95638 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15050
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
BWG FOODS LIMITED
AND
MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
Dismissal, seeking reinstatement.
BACKGROUND:
The worker concerned was employed for approximately 16 years
as Manager of the Company's Cash & Carry Store in Nenagh. He
was responsible for all matters relating to the branch.
Following a short period of suspension with pay, his
employment was terminated on 5th September, 1995.
The Company claims that the worker had been advised of the
difficulties which the Company had concerning his work
performance over a period of time (details supplied to the
Court). He failed to correct the situation which left the
Company with no alternative but to terminate his employment.
The matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission.
A conciliation conference took place on 17th October, 1995
but agreement could not be reached and the dispute was
referred to the Labour Court on 7th November, 1995 under
Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1990. A
Labour Court hearing took place on 12th December, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The worker has been treated unfairly by management. Despite
his 16 years service he was not afforded an opportunity to
defend himself prior to his dismissal. Under proper
procedures he was not given notice of the issues as they
arose over a long period of time.
2. If the worker had been aware that the Company was reviewing
his position and the operation of the Nenagh branch in such
detail, he would have had the opportunity to address and
rectify the specific issues used as a basis to dismiss him.
3. The Company's claim that it has given the worker every
opportunity to resolve the issues involved over a long period
of time is rejected by the Union. It formally brought the
issues to his attention on 24th August, 1995.
4. Contrary to what is claimed, efforts were made to prospect
new business and increase sales to existing customers. The
drop in sales is due to a large extent to the loss of two
customers who ceased trading.
5. The worker seldom took his day-off and regularly worked a 6-
day week. The Company refused to accept his explanation that
his absence from the store on 22nd and 24th August, 1995
occurred during his lunch-break.
6. The worker is concerned that his character and his integrity
have been damaged by the Company's actions. The Company's
decision took no account of the worker's achievements during
his employment i.e., the many years he achieved his sales and
profit targets and his award as 'Manager of the Year' in
1985.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The worker was suspended on full-pay pending a disciplinary
hearing. The hearing was based on a catalogue of areas of
management which the worker had not fulfilled.
2. The Company has given the worker every opportunity to explain
any difficulties which he was having within the branch. He
was advised of the problems which the Company had regarding
his work over a period of time. He was offered help and
assistance in redressing the situation. The worker failed to
take the opportunity to correct the situation.
3. Management is aware of the worker's past service and the high
points in his career with the Company.
4. Management must protect the viability of the Nenagh Branch
and the security of employment of its employees. the
worker's actions, which amounted to gross mis-management,
left the Company with no option but to terminate his
employment.
RECOMMENDATION:
Taking into account all of the information before it, the Court
does not recommend reinstatement in this case, but does recommend
that the Company pay the claimant a sum, the equivalent of six
months salary in recognition of his long service with the Company.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
22nd December, 1995 Finbarr Flood
F.B./A.K. ---------------
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.