FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : AISLING HOTEL (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed by the Hotel in October, 2002. On the 4th of March, 2003, she was requested to attend a meeting with the Company in relation to an 'alleged incident'. The Company claims that on the 1st of March, 2003, a customer paid the worker €2.30 for a cup of coffee. Instead of putting the money in the cash register/till and issuing a receipt, the worker put the money beside the till. She was later observed leaving the area with the money to answer her mobile phone and returning without it. She did not register a sale or issue a receipt. The worker denied the incident. The alleged incident had been reported by a security operative who had been instructed by the Hotel to make observations.
The worker requested her Union to represent her and it sought to have the case dealt with under the disciplinary procedure. The Hotel's case was that the failure to register the sale and issue a receipt constituted gross misconduct. The meeting was adjourned and resumed, on the 5th / 6th of March 2003. The worker again explained that she could not explain the incident on the 1st of March, and she was dismissed with immediate effect without notice or payment in lieu of notice.
The Union referred the case to the Labour Court on the 5th of September, 2003, in accordance with section 20 (1) of the Industrial relations Act 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 17th of June, 2004, the earliest date suitable to parties. The worker agreed to the bound by the Court's recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The worker had no problem regarding her work until the day of the 'alleged incident' and the Company has acknowledged this. She was a full-time employee.
2 The worker genuinely cannot recall the incident of the 1st of March 2003. She remembers that she was very busy and was dealing with numerous customers.
3. The Company did not adhere to its own procedures . As a result it did not allow a transparent investigation to take place.
4. The Union believes that the worker's punishment was very harsh and unfair.
HOTEL'S ARGUMENTS
4. 1. Staff are required to place all cash received for goods in the till, register the sale and issue a receipt for the sale. The worker knew the procedure, but did not follow it on the day in question. She could not give a reasonable explanation for her failure to follow procedures.
2. The Hotel was satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the worker had taken the €2.30 without permission . It believes that the bonds of trust had been broken.
3. The worker was dismissed for gross misconduct on grounds of theft. At all times during the investigation she was afforded due process.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the submissions of both parties and concludes that the evidence against the claimant was not conclusive enough to warrant an allegation of gross misconduct .
Secondly, under the Company's disciplinary procedures, such an allegation carries penalties including dismissal/suspension/warning without recourse to the normal disciplinary procedures. The Court is not satisfied that the process followed by the Company in this case was in accordance with those set down in its procedures.
In all the circumstances of this case, the Court awards €1,500 compensation in full and final settlement of this dispute.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
30th June, 2004______________________
CON/PM.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.