FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : PORTUN LIMITED - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR11662/02/GF.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned states that he commenced employment with the Company on the 26th of June, 2002, as a Banksman/Crane Driver. He claims he was unfairly dismissed on the 29th of September, 2002. He received one day's notice of his dismissal.
The Company states that he commenced employment on 3rd of July, 2002, and he was dismissed on the 28th of September, 2002, for his continued verbal abuse and threatening behaviour towards a member of management.
The issue was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. The Company did not attend the Rights Commissioner's hearing. The Rights Commissioner's findings and recommendation issued on the 14th of
April, 2003, as follows:-
"In the absence of the respondent Company I am accepting the claimant's evidence and decide the dismissal was unfair. I note the claimant has been unemployed for a lengthy period and I recommend he be paid the sum of €5,000 in full and final settlement of the matter".
The Company appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 19th of May, 2003, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 17th September, 2003, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker concerned was given every opportunity to address the situation. His behaviour continued even after a cooling off period.
2. It was made clear to the worker concerned and to his representatives at all times that he was putting his position in danger due to his behaviour.
3. Under the circumstances the dismissal was warranted.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's grievance procedure was not explained to the worker concerned.
2. The worker concerned was not given the opportunity to address the Company's allegations against him.
3. The dismissal was unfair.
DECISION:
Having considered all aspects of this appeal the Court is of the view that the dismissal was not unfair in the circumstances as outlined, therefore the Court overturns the Rights Commissioner's recommendation and the employer's appeal succeeds.
Based on the contradictory evidence concerning the worker's employment dates the Court recommends that he should be paid €900 in lieu of notice.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
8th October, 2003______________________
CON/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.