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 261/96.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a worker who was employed by the Company on the 3rd of November, 1995, in the capacity of security guard. He was dismissed, on the 8th of May, 1996, following an incident whereby he was allegedly present on one of the Company's security sites in a state of intoxication. The Company claimed that the incident took place when the worker was on duty and that his behaviour was in contravention of the policy of the Company and the Irish Professional Security Association. The worker rejected the Company's position. 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 the worker before carrying out a proper investigation. He also found that the worker had a clear record up to the alleged offence and that there was no reasonable relationship between the alleged offence and the penalty of dismissal. He found that the worker was unfairly dismissed and recommended that he should be paid £500 by way of redress. Both parties appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation, 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. A number of complaints regarding the worker's performance were received from clients of the Company. All employees are given copies of their code of conduct at the commencement of their employment. It is strictly against Company policy for employees to consume alcohol prior to going to work or while working. It is also unacceptable for employees to return to a client's property, in uniform, after duties are finished, particularly under the influence of alcohol.
2. The worker had received both verbal and written warnings regarding the quality of his work.
3. The worker's claim that the Company's contract was finished on the site, when he was in an intoxicated condition, is rejected. The worker actually worked there up to 8p.m. at which time he handed over to another man. At no time did he advise his relief that he believed the contract was finished.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. During the time in the pub before commencing duty, the worker's uniform was concealed. Subsequently, when he was on the site, the Company's contract had already finished.
2. The worker did not receive warnings as alleged by the Company and an alleged incident in the foreman's office had nothing to do with him.
3. Since his dismissal, one of the client companies, Smith Construction, has given the worker a good reference.
DECISION:
The Court, having considered the submissions made by the parties, is satisfied, given the seriousness of the incident in question and the specific type of employment involved, that the Company was entitled to take the action it did in dismissing the employee. The Court, accordingly, does not uphold the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation and 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.