FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : TALDEC LIMITED - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal by both parties against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation 176/98.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the manufacture of breakfast provisions which it supplies to the supermarket chains.
This dispute concerns one worker who was employed as a hotplate operative, from March, 1997 until his dismissal in February, 1998. The Company claims that the worker had a bad attitude and, consequently, the quality of his work suffered. This dismissal was, apparently, precipitated by an incident during which the worker and colleagues of his were found to have consumed alcohol on Company premises. The colleagues received a verbal warning arising from this incident and the worker was given a week's notice. The worker claims that he was unfairly treated by the Company in the manner of his dismissal and that he was made an example of in order to keep others in line arising from the fact that he had voiced his dissent against certain unfair working conditions. The Company rejects the claim of unfair dismissal.
The dispute was the subject of investigation by a Rights Commissioner who concluded that, while the employer had found the worker to be a difficult employee who caused controversy in the workplace, there was no reasonable basis for dismissal. The Rights Commissioner found, further, that if the difficulties were as serious as the employer alleged, the worker should have received formal verbal and written warnings accordingly. The Rights Commissioner found the dismissal to be unfair and recommended that the worker be paid £800 by way of a termination payment in full and final settlement of his claim against the Company.
The dispute was appealed by both parties, to the Labour Court, on the 4th of August, 1998. The Court heard the appeals on the 21st of September, 1998.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The worker was dismissed for consuming alcohol on the premises and, accordingly, his dismissal was justified.
2. The worker's conduct was generally disruptive and the Company was not in a position to make him permanent. He had been reprimanded regularly for being troublesome and he displayed a bad attitude towards his work and caused considerable controversy in the workplace.
3. Upon his dismissal, the worker received his wages, one week's back pay and one week's wages in lieu of notice.
4. The Company ceased trading on 31st of July, 1998, and there are no funds available to make a termination payment.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The worker was singled out by the employer in order to be made an example of, in order to keep other staff in line. At the time of dismissal, while the employer claimed that the worker's attitude was unsatisfactory, the matter of drinking on the premises was not mentioned.
2. On the night of the dismissal, the worker had been drinking with colleagues who were only given warnings while he was dismissed on the spot. The claim that the worker had a bad attitude is rejected. Production actually doubled on the line during the year he was employed with the Company. He was victimised because he acted as a spokesman for his colleagues when any work-related difficulties arose.
3. The worker received no warnings in relations to his performance or attitude. A month before the dismissal the employer completed a mortgage approval form for the worker indicating that his position was permanent.
DECISION:
Having considered the submissions made by the parties the Court does not find any basis for changing the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
The Rights Commissioner's recommendation is, therefore, upheld.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
7th of October, 1998______________________
MK/BCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.