FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : THE FILM INSTITUTE OF IRELAND (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Owens Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed by the Institute as a part-time barman from 2nd April, 1997 to 23rd April, 1997. He was responsible for general duties in the bar.
It is claimed by management that while working the evening shift on the 23rd April, 1997 the worker, having served a customer, put the money, (£8.40) in the cash register but failed to register the sale.
The worker was informed by the supervisor that the incident would be reported to the bar manager and the finance manager and that he would not be rostered for duty until such time as the matter was fully investigated. He was instructed to contact the bar manager in the following days for a decision in the matter.
The worker claims that as the spring on the till was broken it was not an uncommon practice for staff to put money in and to ring up the sale at a later stage. He accepts that he failed to register the sale. The worker claims that following his suspension he made a number of telephone calls to the bar manager,as instructed by management, to ascertain his position but on each occasion was informed that the manager was too busy to speak to him. As management failed to make contact with him he did not regard himself as being in a position to report for work. The worker claims, therefore, that he has been constructively dismissed.
Management rejects the claim that the worker was dismissed. He failed to report back to work following his suspension and left of his own free will.The worker referred the dispute to the Labour Court on the 1st December, 1997 in accordance with Section 20 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court investigated the dispute on the 13th January, 1998.
WORKER'SARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It was not an uncommon practice for staff to put money into the till following a sale and to ring up the sale at a later stage.
2. The worker was upset on that particular day as his dog had been killed by a car.
3. The worker accepts that he may have omitted to register a sale. However, a warning and not dismissal would have been appropriate.
4. The worker was advised to contact the bar manager to ascertain his future employment with the Institute. He tried on a number of occasions to contact the bar manager but was informed that the manager was too busy to speak to him.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was not dismissed. He failed to fully pursue his position following an investigation. He left of his own free will and was not dismissed.
2. The Company cannot accept the worker's excuse as justification for his failure to follow procedures.
3. The worker was trained in the operating procedures on the cash registers. He knew his actions were leaving him liable to investigation.
4. Management believe that there is no case to answer as no dismissal took place. The worker, by his conduct, terminated his own employment.
RECOMMENDATION:
On the basis of the evidence presented the Court is satisfied that no dismissal took place. The Court accordingly recommends that the Institute give the claimant a satisfactory reference.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
21st January, 1998______________________
L.W./U.S.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.