FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : TRACTAMOTORS LIMITED - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation ST134/96 concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company as a car wash operative on 14th March, 1995. In July, 1995, he was appointed to the position of petrol pump attendant. His employment was terminated on 22nd February, 1996.
The worker claimed that he had been unfairly dismissed and referred the matter to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. The Rights Commissioner investigated the matter on 22nd March, 1996. An agreement reached between the parties at the Rights Commissioner investigation was subsequently rejected by the worker.
On 10th June, 1996 the Rights Commissioner recommended as follows:-
"The reason why the Rights Commissioner set out to assist the claimant
in the first instance was because he believed that there was no viable
case against the employer given the evidence adduced at the hearing.
I have not changed that view and indeed the events since the hearing
have lent further credence to the claims of the employer in relation to the
claimant. I therefore recommend that the claimant was not unfairly
dismissed and that the employer had reasonable grounds for returning
him to his previous duties in the car wash area where he was originally
employed."
The Rights Commissioner's recommendation was appealed by the worker to the Labour Court on 25th July, 1996 under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 28th August, 1996.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Management's treatment of the worker was unfair. He coped adequately with his work and responsibilities under difficult circumstances and management's decision to demote him was not justified.
2. The worker is concerned that management are of the view that the Gardai have some doubt as to whether or not he was involved in the four robberies which occurred while he was on duty.
3. The worker was dismissed because he refused to sign a letter in relation to re-assignment which contained false allegations, but he indicated that he was prepared to return to his former position on the car wash.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker received a number of warnings in relation to his work performance in general and particularly in relation to putting petrol in diesel cars.
2. Management was concerned for the safety of the public and offered the worker the opportunity to revert to his previous position on the car wash.
3. The worker was not dismissed. He refused management's offer to revert to his former position.
4. Management accepted the Rights Commissioner's proposal to pay the worker 1 week's pay and to supply him with a suitable reference.
DECISION:
Having examined the evidence from both parties, the Court has concluded that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation should be upheld.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
10th September, 1996______________________
F.B./D.T.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.