FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : PECUNIA ENTERPRISES LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES (IRELAND) LIMITED) - AND - AGEMOU TRADE GROUP DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. Pecunia Enterprises Limited operate under the name of Rooney Gallagher Insurances as an insurance brokerage.
The worker concerned commenced employment as a clerical officer in 1996. He was assigned to the Company's call centre, receiving calls and dealing with customers' insurance requirements. The worker was dismissed in May, 1997 following a complaint from a client who had not received her insurance certificates. The Company argues that the worker was grossly negligent, wrong information had been sent to the insurers, no hard copy of the instructions to the insurers could be found and the electronic copy had been altered to indicate that another worker had recorded the reference.
The worker claimed that he had been unfairly dismissed and referred the matter to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 8th of April, 1998.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company had no complaints regarding the worker's job performance prior to the incident which led to his dismissal.
2. The Company treated the worker unfairly. It did not discharge its duty to investigate the allegation fully and assess the information upon which it made its decision.
3. The worker's dismissal had a devastating effect on himself and his family. The alleged mistake did not warrant dismissal.
4. The Company's decision to dismiss the worker was unfair and he should be compensated for his loss.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company accepts that employees may make a mistake, some being genuine and some careless. In this particular instance there appears to be more than a simple mistake made. The hard copy evidence shows that the original entries onto the computer were made by the worker concerned and that he signed the documents.
2. The only way that the reference could be changed is deliberately, as once entered there would be no need to go near it again. It is clear that no hard copies were retained which would have shown who had been responsible for the original mistakes.
3. The worker admitted that he had entered the incorrect address and issued the documents. However, he was unable to provide any form of explanation regarding the changes which were made.
4. The Insurance Industry requires absolute honesty and accuracy. Whilst an incorrect entry may be made and could possibly result in a reprimand, taken in the context of the other events, the Company concluded that it could not rely upon the worker to carry out his duties responsibly.
5. At the minimum the worker was grossly negligent. The customer's policy was incorrect, wrong information had been sent to the insurers and another employee could have been seriously reprimanded for something she did not do. In the circumstances the Company acted reasonably in allowing him one month's notice.
RECOMMENDATION:
While it is clear that a customer transaction was mishandled within the Company and that the claimant was the person whose name appeared on the transaction, it is less clear what happened after he took the original call.
The Court fully accepts the points made by the Company in relation to the necessity for absolute honesty and accuracy, given the nature of this business.
However, given the facts as outlined, the lack of concrete evidence and the age and inexperience of this employee, the Court is not satisfied with the manner of his dismissal.
In the circumstances the Court recommends that the option of re-employment be given to the employee, to be taken up within a month.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
24th June, 1998______________________
F.B./S.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.