FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : WALVERDENE LIMITED - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY MANDATE) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Compensation
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker commenced employment as a senior barman in March, 2001. The Union claims that he was unfairly dismissed on the 2nd of March, 2003. The worker had given his employer two weeks' notice on the 28th of February, 2003, as he had secured employment in another licensed premises. The Union's case is as follows:- the worker was rostered to work on the 2nd of March, 2003, and was due to have an evening break from 7.00 p.m. to 9.00 p.m. Following a request from another employee to cover for him, the worker went on his break at 7.45 p.m. and returned at 9.45 p.m. Following an argument with his manager, the worker was told that he was being suspended without pay and to report back for a meeting on the 7th of March (details supplied to the Court). The Union maintains that the worker was not allowed to work his two weeks' notice and is seeking that he should be paid for the two weeks. Management's case is that comments made by the worker on the night in question indicated that he had no intention of working his notice or attending the meeting on the 7th of March. In the event he was issued with a P45 and paid up to the 3rd of March.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 29th of October, 2004, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 31st of March, 2005, the earliest date suitable to the parties. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The reason given for the worker's suspension was gross misconduct. Punctuality is not listed as a serious misdemeanour in Section 6 of the Agreement on Disciplinary Procedures in the Licensed Trade.
2. The Company did not follow proper procedures in its suspension of the worker. He was not allowed to put his case and explain his version of events.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The incident of the 1st of March was not an isolated incident. There were persistent time-keeping problems with the worker as well as problems with his attitude to staff and customers.
2. The worker was requested to attend a disciplinary meeting on the 28th of February, 2003. The worker said he would not attend and instead gave two weeks notice.
3. The worker became threatening and abusive on the 2nd of March when he was told that he was being suspended. He appeared to be under the influence of alcohol.
4. The worker resigned, he was not dismissed. At the time he was on a clear written warning in regard to his time-keeping.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is satisfied that, in the circumstances of this case, the employer should not have suspended the worker without pay before any investigation was conducted into the complaints made against him.
Accordingly, the Court is of the view that the Union's complaint is well founded and the Court recommends that the worker be paid for the two weeks in question at his normal weekly rate of pay.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
8th April, 2005______________________
CON/MB.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.