FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MENINGITIS RESEARCH FOUNDATION - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Foundation in August, 1998 initially as co-ordinator and subsequently as Manager. He received a written contract of employment and was made permanent after six months. On the 21st of May, 1999 the worker was informed by the Director that he was being suspended with pay for falsifying a Toil (Time off in lieu) form. The Foundation held a disciplinary hearing at its UK headquarters and the worker was invited to attend this hearing. He subsequently declined on legal advice. On June 21st, 1999 the worker was dismissed from the employment. He subsequently wrote to the Chairman and trustees of the Foundation and attended an appeal hearing at Headquarters. His appeal was unsuccessful and the Foundation's decision to dismiss the worker for 'fraudulent claim' was upheld. The worker claimed that he was unfairly dismissed and sought to refer the issue to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. The Foundation objected to such a referral. On the 16th of September, 1999 the worker submitted a complaint 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 Court hearing was held on the 4th of November, 1999. The Foundation declined an invitation to attend the hearing.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In early May, 1999 the worker sought and received permission to take leave, comprised of three days granted by the employer and three days Toil. On the 18th of May the worker was requested by Management to complete the paperwork regarding his leave. He completed the Toil form detailing three days leave entitlement for working the Bank Holiday weekend and other Toil hours. The worker admits that the method by which he completed the form was not completely accurate but he categorically denies the suggestion that he deliberately falsified it.
2. The worker did not falsify the Toil form to purposefully gain some benefit to which he was not entitled. Nothing could be further from the truth as there were other hours, including travel to and from an operational planning meeting abroad which the worker could have included on the form. He also had 20 days annual leave, therefore, there would be no benefit to be gained from falsifying the form. It was custom and practice since the worker commenced employment with the Foundation to record or claim Toil when he wanted time off. Therefore, many hours the employee worked outside office hours were never claimed for. It should be noted that the claimant also gave his subordinate the same amount of time off for fewer hours worked on the same weekend.
3. The worker never intended to mislead senior management about his whereabouts on the weekend in question but he did inform the Director that he was unaware of the exact hours of that weekend as it was not until three weeks after the event that he was asked for the paperwork. The worker appreciates that he should have submitted the paperwork before he took time off, but as it was at very short notice, he was extremely busy trying to prepare the office for his absence. The worker, preparing to visit a very seriously ill immediate relative, had other things on his mind. He knows the paperwork submitted was not exactly correct and he informed the Director of this. He thought she understood and accepted this situation.
4. The employer seems not to have taken account of any time the claimant worked over the weekend except when he was sitting on the stand at the 'Baby and Kids' show. This is ridiculous as all the other work he did that weekend was exceptional work as laid out in the Foundation's guidelines for Toil. Time spent visiting other stands at the show and networking was not taken into account. The worker also had to progress the move to new offices and knew he would spend time on it that weekend. He just specified the 'Baby and Kids' show as it was the primary reason for Toil.
5. It is inconceivable that, at worst sloppy completion of a form warrants dismissal. If the hours of work over a Bank Holiday weekend are studied it is abundantly clear that the time the claimant took off was fair and reasonable.
6. During the worker's ten months in the Foundation he carried out his duties and responsibilities in a competent, professional and efficient manner. The worker was treated in an arbitrary and unfair manner in being dismissed for purely submitting a form which was lacking in detail. He seek appropriate redress.
RECOMMENDATION:
The employer did not attend the Court hearing but a solicitor on behalf of the employer wrote to the Court indicating that the employer would not be bound under the terms of any recommendation made by the Tribunal in relation to the claimant.
The information, therefore, being considered by the Court was that supplied by the claimant who made comprehensive written and oral submissions.
It would appear from the information supplied that difficulties appear to have arisen between the employee and his superior, a Director of the Foundation in May, 1999. In the eight or nine months before that there is no evidence of any significant problems in relation to the claimant’s work performance, in fact he had been given an increase and extended responsibilities.
The relationship seems to have deteriorated quite dramatically and quite suddenly over a very short period of time. The Court is not satisfied that the issues as outlined in relation to the filling in of the Toil sheets warranted the subsequent dismissal, particularly as the method of filling in the Toil forms seems to have been hap-hazard and lacking in detail before this issue arose.
Having considered all of the information supplied the Court is satisfied that the claimant was unfairly dismissed and recommends compensation of £10,000 be paid by the Foundation and that he be supplied with a suitable reference.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
17th November, 1999______________________
T.O'D./D.T.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.