FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : FALKON SECURITY SERVICES - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. ST 260/96.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns one worker who commenced his employment with the Company, as a security guard, on the 10th of November, 1995, and who was dismissed on the 8th of May, 1996. The Company claimed that the worker's dismissal was reasonable and cited a number of incidents whereby the worker had failed to perform his duties as required (details supplied to the Court). His dismissal was precipitated by one of these incidents when the worker was on site in a state of intoxication. The worker rejected the Company's claim.
The dispute was the subject of investigation by a Rights Commissioner who found that the worker was not afforded fair procedures before the fact of dismissal and that the Company had decided to dismiss before attempting a proper investigation. The Rights Commissioner also found that the worker never understood that he could have appealed any warning which he considered unfair. Despite the fact that the worker did not have a clear record up to the alleged offence, the Rights Commissioner was not satisfied that there was a reasonable relationship between the ultimate penalty of dismissal and the alleged offence. He found that the worker was unfairly dismissed and recommended that he receive the sum of £400 by way of redress. Both parties appealed the Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeals on the 7th of October, 1996.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker failed to check in a truck correctly at the entrance to a site where he was employed. As a result losses of £47,000 were incurred by another company with its factory on the site. The worker was issued with a verbal warning on that occasion.
2. The worker was responsible for a guard dog that bit a young girl at the entrance to Tallaght community school. The worker failed to have the dog muzzled, as is required. This incident cost the Company £3,000 in compensation to the girl who was bitten.
3. On another site, complaints were received from a client that the worker was on site in a state of intoxication. This is completely against Company policy. On reporting to the office the following morning to explain his behaviour the worker acted in an aggressive manner. He was subsequently dismissed.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The checking-in of trucks by noting the registration number was normal practice. Although aware of a tightening of security at the time of the particular incident, he never saw any directive/document regarding the manner of checking-in trucks.
2. On the occasion the girl was bitten, the dog was not wearing a muzzle because the Company did not supply one. The worker was not made aware that a muzzle was required nor was he given any training in dog-handling.
3. On the occasion that the worker was intoxicated, he was not on duty. The Company had handed over responsibility for security to another firm and his presence on the site had nothing to do with Falcon Security.
DECISION:
The Court, having considered the submissions made by the parties, is satisfied, given the employee's previous record, that the Company acted in a correct manner, in this case. The Court, therefore, concludes that the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation should not be upheld and, accordingly, upholds the Company's appeal.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
27th November, 1996______________________
M.K./S.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.