FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IRISH FERRIES - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. (1) Dismissal (2) Pay pending internal appeal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed by the Company from 1974 until his dismissal on the 25th of June, 2004, for failing to comply with the requirement of the Company to remain free from alcohol. The Union does not dispute the facts of the case. The worker has a history of problems with alcohol, and the Company cited a number of cases where these problems affected his work. On the 29th of January, 2004, the worker was due to fly out of Dublin to join his ship in dry-dock. He missed the flight and, by his own admission, had a number of drinks resulting in him being admitted to hospital the following morning.
A Company investigation took place and the result was the decision to dismiss the worker.The worker was removed from the payroll from the date of dismissal. The Union declined to use the in-house appeal process as the Company refused to retain the worker as an employee pending the outcome of the appeal. The Union sought a voluntary redundancy package for the worker (worth approximately €110,000) but the Company was only willing to pay statutory redundancy (worth approximately €35,000).
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 12th of October, 2004, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 21st of January, 2005.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker had been following a recovery programme since 2001 and the incident in January, 2004, was the first time he had a drink in 3 years. The worker's father had died seven weeks prior to the incident and the worker was feeling particularity depressed on the night in question.
2. The Company decision to remove the worker from the payroll pending the internal appeal process is contrary to natural justice.
3. The worker had 30 years' service with the Company. Apart from his alcohol related problems he was an excellent employee.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The worker's position is a responsible one. The final decision to dismiss was not as a result of a once-off incident but followed a pattern of previous breaches on the worker's part. The Company had provided assistance to the worker on more than one occasion.
2. The worker was retained on pay whilst the investigation process was carried out - a period of almost five months.
3. The decision to dismiss the worker was fair and reasonable considering the number of times he had lapsed in the past. The Company does not feel confident that he can be trusted again.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered at length the oral and written submissions made to it by the parties.
It is clear to the Court that, taking all the evidence into account, the Company's decision to dismiss the claimant was not unreasonable under the Company/Union disciplinary agreement. In all the circumstances, the Court is of the view that reinstatement is not warranted in this case.
In the view of the Court, the option of an exit package for the claimant, which was discussed between the parties previously, should be pursued.
The Court recommends that the offer made in this context by the Company should be improved to provide for a figure of €50,000. On acceptance, discussions should take place between the Company and the Union with a view to arranging the responsible dispersal of this sum to provide the maximum benefit for the claimant and his family.
The Court so recommends.
The Court notes that the disciplinary procedure adopted in the case were those set out in an agreement between the parties.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
1st February, 2005______________________
CON/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.