FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : TALLAGHT HOSPITAL (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A.WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed as a temporary, part-time housekeeper from the 28th of February, 2000, until she was dismissed on the 26th of January, 2001.
The Union claims that the worker was unfairly dismissed. It states that allegations made against the worker were not properly investigated by management before the decision to dismiss her was taken. The worker had just returned from maternity leave.
Management rejected the Union's claim. It stated that the worker was dismissed for using abusive and threatening language to her superior.
The Union referred the dispute to the Labour Court on the 11th of September, 2001, under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on the 11th of January, 2002.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The dispute between the worker and her supervisor arose from a misunderstanding in relation to a change of roster. She apologised for any offence which she may have caused.
2. Management acted unfairly in this case, not only in the manner in which the worker was dismissed but also the failure to have the allegations independently investigated. The worker has no disciplinary sanctions on her record.
3. The worker had no right of appeal under the organisation's grievance/disciplinary code, as she was temporary which permitted her dismissal without question.
4. The Union is seeking either (a) reinstatement, or (b) monetary compensation as a redress for the poor treatment that the worker received and loss of salary endured.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was dismissed for gross misconduct following foul and abusive language towards her supervisor.
2. The worker failed to cooperate with the disciplinary procedure when her supervisor raised a complaint against her.
3. The worker's behaviour would be unacceptable for any employer. She had agreed to work in a new location and agreed her working hours with her supervisor prior to her return to work.
4. The worker had previously tendered her resignation both verbally and in writing. When she continued in her abusive manner despite being warned that it was unacceptable, the hospital felt that it was reasonable to terminate her contract of employment.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given consideration to all aspects of this case. The employee's employment was terminated following her return to work at the expiry of her maternity leave, due to circumstances which the employer describe as amounting to gross misconduct due to "the use of foul and abusive language."
While the Court does not condone such behaviour, in these circumstances where the employee has just returned from maternity leave and due to her otherwise good employment record, the Court recommends that the hospital should re-consider their offer to re-employ her in a different location within the hospital.
This offer should be left open to the claimant to accept or reject, for a period of four weeks from the date of the offer.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
22nd January, 2002______________________
LW/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.