FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : CROWNE PLAZA HOTEL (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by a worker employed as a sous chef by the Crowne Plaza Hotel that he was unfairly dismissed from his employment which commenced in February, 2004. On the 25th May, 2004, the worker absenced himself from work three hours before his shift was due to end and claims that this was a reaction to poor Management practices and non-compliance with standards and procedures which put him in an uncomfortable situation at work regarding certain issues. The Company rejects the claim and contends that the decision to dismiss the worker was due to unexplained and wilful absence from work.
- On the 28th July, 2004, the worker referred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 15th October, 2004.
- The worker agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
- The worker agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
3. 1. A number of issues and grievances were brought to the attention of Managers and should have been followed through within 5 days as outlined in the employee handbook. Failure to do so was non-compliance with policies and procedures which is termed in the handbook as gross misconduct.
2. The absence from work was not wilful but a reaction brought about by poor Management. Unauthorised absences are considered misconduct and this absence should be considered as such and not considered as gross misconduct. Appropriate action such as no pay for the period of absence or suspension should have been the action taken but not dismissal.
3. There was no presence of Human Resources at the time of dismissal despite a request by the worker nor was there a meeting with the line Manager to explain his action. As a result of the dismissal the worker's self-esteem has been knocked and he had great difficulty in finding new employment.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company rejects the claim of unfair dismissal and contends that the worker was dismissed for reasons of gross misconduct in accordance with the staff handbook.
2. The worker could not offer anything in the way of mitigating circumstances other than certain practices bothered him personally. His decision to walk off the job was reprehensible and as he was third in charge, he had responsibility to employees.
3. All laws of natural justice were adhered to. The worker was suspended with pay pending an investigation and he rejected representation at the investigation and the disciplinary stage. The workers action is considered an act of gross misconduct in line with the Company’s procedures.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submission, the Court is of the view that while the claimant may have genuine grievances which needed to be addressed by Management, his actions in leaving the workplace in the circumstances as described were inappropriate, contrary to his terms and conditions of employment and constituted 'gross misconduct' under the Company's disciplinary procedures.
The Court understands that this action by the claimant lead to a lack of trust and confidence in the worker, which was the ultimate reason for his dismissal. However, the Court is of the view that further efforts could have been made to alleviate the stress and anxiety caused to him by the lack of investigation into his grievances.
In all circumstances of this case, the Court is of the view that the termination of his employment was not unfair and therefore, the Court rejects the claimant's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
2nd November, 2004______________________
JO'CDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Joanne O'Connor, Court Secretary.