FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : NEACHTAIN COACHES (REPRESENTED BY GERAGHTY AND COMPANY, SOLICITORS) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Alleged Unfair Dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a worker who commenced employment with the Company as a bus driver on the 12th February, 2001. He was dismissed at 5. p.m. on the same day. The worker claimed that he was unfairly dismissed. The Company rejected the claim. The Union, on behalf of the worker, sought to refer the issue to a Rights Commissioner for investigation but the Company objected to such referral. On the 2nd July, 2001 the worker referred a complaint to the Labour Court under Section 20 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Court hearing was held in Galway on the 7th November, 2001. At the hearing the employer's representative argued that the Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case, and that the claimant was not covered by the legislation as he was employed for less than six months. The Court rejected this contention and decided that the worker was entitled to have his claim heard under the Employment Legislation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The employer agreed to employ the claimant following the successful completion of a driving test. The claimant gave up good employment to take up this
position because it was nearer to his home.
2. At 5pm on the 12th February, while cleaning out his bus, the claimant was approached by his employer who stated that he had received an anonymous phone call at 3.30p.m. concerning the claimant. The employer informed the claimant he was terminating his employment on foot of information
contained in the telephone call. The claimant was dismissed and
received one day's wages. The employer was not prepared to divulge the content or the source of the telephone call.
3. The claimant had worked for a number of companies over the years and had a good employment record attested to by a reference produced at the hearing.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was employed on a one week's trial basis. The employer decided to let the worker go as a result of information he received by telephone from a
local resident of high repute. The employer was not prepared to divulge the content of this confidential information to the claimant.
2. In light of the information received, the employer formed the opinion that he could not retain the claimant in the employment and felt justified in dismissing him.
RECOMMENDATION:
The employer has raised two points relating to the court jurisdiction:
(a) Section 20 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 refers to workers in the plural and therefore a single worker may not bring a claim.
Section 11 of the Interpretation Act 1937 states that the plural imports the singular unless a contrary intention appears. There is no such contrary intention expressed in the 1969 Act and the Court has therefore jurisdiction to hear the worker's claim
(b) The employee is not covered by the provisions of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977.
The Court is being asked to investigate a trade dispute under Section 20 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969, not a claim under the Unfair Dismissals Act and as such has jurisdiction to hear the claim.
While there is a disagreement as to what exactly was said at the time of dismissal, the employer accepts that he did terminate the claimant's employment at the end of the first day. He accepts that he informed the claimant that it was because of a phone call he received and that he did not express any other concerns.
The Court cannot accept that an employee can be dismissed based on a phone call from someone the employer refuses to identify, making allegations the employer refuses to specify.
Given the serious consequences for the employee he should have been given an opportunity to respond fully to any charges being made against him. It is therefore unacceptable that he be dismissed without being aware of the exact charges against him or who is his accuser.
The Court, having considered the information before it finds the manner of dismissal to be unfair.
The Court recommends that the claimant be re-employed, subject to a trial period of one month. Alternatively, if either side finds this to be untenable, then the employer is to pay the claimant £2000 (2539.48 Euro) in compensation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
20th November,2001______________________
TOD/BRChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.