FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DONAL SKELLY LIMITED - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed by the Company for 25 years. He was responsible for the production department and had control of the staff training requirements.
The Union claims that the following happened:- On the 11th of January, 2000, the worker concerned returned to work after the Christmas break. He learned that 2 apprentices had been dismissed during his absence. A third apprentice who had been dismissed was later reinstated after furnishing a doctor's certificate. The worker believed that the 2 apprentices were treated less favourably than the third one and said this to his employer. The employer then dismissed the third employee for a final time. On the 18th of January the worker was accused by his employer of the following:
1. Not allowing site fitters to carry out alterations in the workshop.
2. Of being grumpy and gruff in his dealings with others.
3. Of encouraging other employees to complain about the sackings.
4. Of not assisting and co-operating with the contracts section.
The worker refuted the accusations, and believed that they were made to frustrate him into leaving. He felt that his position was undermined and indicated on the 18th of January that he felt forced to resign, which he did 4 days later. The Union regarded it as constructive dismissal. The Company, however, believes that the worker left of his own free will.
The worker referred his case to the Labour Court on the 9th of February, 2001, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 4th of April, 2001. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The worker had given 25 years' unblemished and loyal service before he was constructively dismissed. He had performed very satisfactorily in all his resposibilities.
2. Management appears to have decided that it could no longer trust the worker to carry out his responsibilities. An example of this was the employer dismissing the 3 apprentices, something that should have been done by the worker if it was necessary. The rest of the workforce was annoyed by management's decision in this instance.
3. Management made no effort to talk to the worker when he indicated on the 18th of January that he would have to resign. He was distressed for months afterwards and could not understand why he was subjected to such treatment after 25 years' service.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The employer dismissed the 3 apprentices as they were missing from work and had not contacted the Company. He could no longer tolerate a situation of people taking unofficial sick leave and, as the worker concerned had not returned from Christmas leave, the employer decided to take action against it. It was not meant to undermine the worker's authority.
2. The worker was not dismissed. He left of his own free will. The employer did discuss the situation with him but felt that they had "agreed to disagree" and that the matter was at an end.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given careful consideration to all aspects of this case, and is satisfied that the employee was not constructively dismissed but left of his own accord. The Court notes the employer's willingness to make a payment as a gesture of goodwill due to the long and loyal service of the employee. Therefore, the Court recommends that the offer of £2,400 should be accepted in full and final settlement of this claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
4th May, 2001______________________
CONDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.