FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : SECURWAY LIMITED - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. On the 3rd of August, 1998, the security manager of the Company was introduced to the worker who was seeking work as a security man. The security manager gave the worker a "Securway Limited start-up pack" containing a consent form which the worker signed. The security manager retained one copy for himself. The consent form authorises the Company to ask the Gardai regarding any criminal convictions a new employee might have. The worker commenced employment that night. As the security manager did not have an application form with him, he completed one from information the worker gave him and sent a copy to the worker the following day.
On the 7th of August, 1998, the security manager met the worker again. He claims that the worker informed him that he had not been completely honest with him when they first met on the 3rd of August. The worker admitted that he did have a criminal record. The security manager informed the Chief Executive of the Company and the worker's employment was terminated on the 13th of August.
The worker believes that he was unfairly dismissed and referred his case to the Labour Court on the 16th of September, 1998, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 30th of October, 1998. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker left a job to join the Company in the hopes of getting more permanent work. He was given the job immediately, starting work later the same evening.
2. The worker admits that he had some problems with the law, but it was many years ago. The last occasion was in 1990 and it was for a minor offence, one which the worker had forgotten about.
3. The worker is unemployed at present and feels that it will be difficult to get work because of what happened with the Company. The Company has admitted that he did his work well for the time that he was employed.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The reason that the worker was dismissed was because he was not truthful with the Company in his application for the job. Failure to notify any convictions for a criminal offence is regarded as a breach of the terms and conditions of employment.
2 If the worker lied about such an important matter before commencing employment, the Company felt it could not trust him in a job which requires strict honesty.
3. If the worker had told the Company about his convictions at the outset, particularly one for larceny in 1990, he would not have been employed at all.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions made and notes that the claimant, while only employed for a short time, carried out his duties satisfactorily. It was due to the hasty procedures at the time of his recruitment that his employment was eventually terminated, as at this time he had given up his previous employment. For this reason, the Court recommends that he should be compensated by the payment of a lump sum of £200 in full and final settlement of this issue.
The Court notes the improved procedures introduced by the Company in recognition of the flaw in their recruitment procedures.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
9th November, 1998______________________
C.O'N./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.