FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : SOUTH MONAGHAN CLEANING SERVICES LTD (REPRESENTED BY HUMAN-RESOURCE SERVICES) - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR18414/04/JH.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company on 29th September, 2002. In May, 2003 the worker was observed, clocking out another member of staff, by the employer and was challenged by him. An investigation was carried out by the employer which revealed that the worker had an arrangement with several employees to falsify clock cards. This represented a serious breach of health and safety regulations and is defined in the Disciplinary Procedure as gross misconduct. The worker was still on probation at the time of the incident. A decision was subsequently taken by the employer to dismiss the worker.
The issue was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. Her recommendation issued on the 22nd June, 2004, as follows:
........ " taking into account the worker's contribution to the employer decision I recommend that the employer pay the worker the sum of €1,200.00 in settlement of his claim for alleged unfair dismissal."
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation).
The worker appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 16th July, 2004, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 14th October, 2004.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker claims the dismissal was unfair as he was the only person to lose his job as a result of the clock card issue.
2. The worker claims that he was unaware that an investigation was taking place. He received no warning until the final written warning was issued.
3. The worker claims that the Employer statement was inaccurate in some respects and is seeking recognition of this fact.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The worker was treated differently to the other employees because he was observed interfering with the clock cards.
2. The worker was on probation at the time of the incident and Section 3(b) of the Probationary clause states that 'the company has the absolute right to terminate his/her employment if he/she is deemed unsuitable'.
3. The worker was provided with an adequate explanation verbally and in writing as to why he was considered unsuitable for employment by the Company.
DECISION:
Having considered the evidence submitted in this matter, the Court feels that the decision of the Rights Commissioner as expressed in her recommendation was correct and decides accordingly.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
26th November, 2004______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.