FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : SERCO SERVICES (IRELAND LIMITED) (REPRESENTED BY MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES) - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. IR6093/01/GF.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed as a general operative from the 6th of August, 1999, to the 21st of July, 2000, when his employment was terminated. The worker claims that he was unfairly dismissed.
Management reject the worker's claim and states that he was dismissed for gross misconduct.
The dispute was the subject of a Rights Commissioner's hearing which took place on the 21st of December, 2001. The following is the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation:-
"I am satisfied the employer made appropriate efforts to deal with this matter through the application of fair procedures and natural justice. There was obviously some confusion on the claimant's part over the meeting date/time. In the circumstances, I must conclude the dismissal was not unfair."
The worker appealed the Recommendation to the Labour Court on the 6th of March, 2002, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court investigated the dispute on the 17th of April, 2002.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker claims that he has been unfairly treated by the Company. He was given no reasons, either written or verbal, as to why he was dismissed.
2. The worker was not given any training or instructions on how to operate the golf cart.
3. The worker completed his probationary period and during this time his work performance was satisfactory.
4. The worker was happy and contented in his job and got on well with everyone he worked with.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker failed to report two accidents he was involved in while at work which he was obliged to do.
2. Management had no alternative but to terminate the worker's employment because of gross misconduct.
3. The worker reported for work under the influence of alcohol. This is a serious breach of the Company's Health and Safety regulations.
4. The worker caused considerable damage to a client's property and also to the Company's property as a result of driving a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.
DECISION:
Having considered all of the evidence in this case the Court is satisfied that the procedures followed by the employer were fair and appropriate. Consequently the dismissal was not unfair.
The Court concurs with the conclusions and recommendation of the Right Commissioner and the appeal is disallowed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
26th April, 2002______________________
LW/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.