FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : GUARDRITE SECURITY LIMITED - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed by the Company on the 12th of May, 1998, to work as a security guard in Janelle Shopping Centre. The Company claims that on the 23rd of May, the manager in the Centre told the acting supervisor that he was unhappy with the worker's performance (misuse of the security radios and abandoning his post). The acting supervisor spoke to the worker who then approached the manager in an aggressive manner. The Centre manager demanded the worker's removal.
The Company decided to give the worker a second chance and he was sent on contract to the Merrion Centre. The Company claims that on the 18th of June the worker abandoned his post several hours early and it was left with no option but to dismiss him. The worker denies leaving his post early and feels that he was unfairly dismissed. He claims that he rang the Company on a number of occasions but could not get through to anyone in authority.
The worker referred his case to the Labour Court on the 3rd of September, 1998, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 6th of October, 1998. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker denies abandoning his post in Janelle or leaving the Merrion Centre early. He also denies misusing the security radios. The worker does not know why he was moved from the Janelle Shopping Centre, despite asking for a reason. He was given no warning about his conduct and no opportunity to defend himself. He was not paid enough for his first three weeks' work.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker's performance in Janelle - his unprofessional use of the radios, i.e., singing to his colleagues, and his absence from his post - left the Company no choice but to remove him. However, the Company gave the worker a second chance at the Merrion Centre. Despite this opportunity, the worker abandoned his post and had to be let go.
2. The worker was not left short of money in his wages. He was paid for all the hours he worked. The worker was not unfairly dismissed. After the incidents in Janelle, he was warned about his conduct.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of the parties in this case.
The Court is satisfied that the claimant was not provided with a written contract of employment, and that the operational requirements of the job were not adequately explained to him. In the Court's view, these factors could have contributed to the events which gave rise to his dismissal.
In all the circumstances of the case, the Court recommends that the Company offer the claimant an ex-gratia payment of £200 in full and final settlement of all claims.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
29th October, 1998______________________
C.O'N./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.