FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ANNESLEY AUTO ELECTRIC LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY THE SOCIETY OF THE IRISH MOTOR INDUSTRY) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY THE UNION OF MOTOR TRADE , TECHNICAL AND INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYEES) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Alleged Unfair Dismissal
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a worker who was employed by the Company from the 18th of July, 1997, as a radio fitter, until his dismissal in February, 1998. The Union, on behalf of the worker, claims that on the 17th of February, 1998 the worker was accused of the theft of a car radio, a charge he denies, and was summarily dismissed.
The Company's position is that the worker, when confronted about a car radio which the Company manager claims to have found in the worker's bag, became aggressive and threatening to the manager. The Company claims that the worker was suspended pending investigation and was dismissed, subsequently, on the grounds of gross misconduct and was notified of same by letter dated the 11th of March, 1998. The Union, in claiming that the dismissal was unfair, is seeking the reinstatement of the worker, without loss of wages. The Union sought to have the matter investigated by a Rights Commissioner but the Company declined to attend such an investigation. The Union referred the matter to the Labour Court, on the 3rd of June, 1998, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court carried out its investigation on the 25th of September, 1998.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was wrongly accused of the theft of the radio. When he enquired on the day if he was sacked he was told "if you want to put it that way". Accordingly, the dismissal took place before a full investigation was completed.
2. The act of keeping the worker on the payroll after the 17th of February was an administrative ploy by the Company to cover its own back. The dismissal did take place on the 17th February, 1998.
3. A heated argument took place at the time the worker was accused of the theft. He instructed the Union, subsequently, to apologise on his behalf, for remarks which were made in the heat of the moment.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker's employment was terminated for reasons of gross misconduct, i.e., the intimidation and verbal and physical assault of his direct manager.
2. The worker was not summarily dismissed. The Company investigated the matter and allowed the worker to submit his side of the story and to be represented, before any decision was made. The worker was paid for all time while he was on suspension.
3. The essential bond of trust between the worker and his superiors was irretrievably broken when he threatened to burn down the manager's house. The manager could no longer be expected to work with this worker under the threat of such criminal action to his home.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions, the Court finds that the claimant was not unfairly dismissed and, accordingly, does not see grounds for reinstatement.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
8th of October, 1998______________________
MK/BCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.