FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : GUARDIAN SECURITY - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Compensation.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a claim by the Union that their member was unfairly dismissed by his employer. The worker who was employed as a security guard was dismissed following an alleged incident at work. The Union is claiming that the worker was not afforded his rights pursuant to natural justice nor was any grievance and disciplinary procedures used by the Company. The Union on behalf of the worker is seeking compensation.
The Company rejects the claim on the basis that following several complaints made against the employer, an alternative position within the Company was offered but was rejected. The Company had no other vacancies and, therefore, had no option but to terminate the employment.
On the 9th of March, 2005, 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 7th of September, 2005, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There were complaints made against the worker alleging inappropriate behaviour at a site being managed by the employee. The employee was not given the opportunity to address these allegations, not was he afforded the right of appeal or representation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There were several incidents of inappropriate behaviour on the part of the worker. Rather than formalise the complaints, the manager of the Company spoke informally to the employee in question. Each time an assurance was given that there would be an improvement. This did not occur.
2. Following repeated incidences, alternative employment within the Company was offered. This was refused. The Company had no choice but to terminate the employment.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submissions.
The worker claims he was unfairly dismissed when his employment was terminated, as the Company had not observed normal disciplinary procedures.
The employer submitted to the Court that when its client instructed it to remove the claimant from its premises due to his unsuitability to that work location, his employment was effectively terminated, as there was no suitable alternative work available for him.
The Court is satisfied that the grounds put forward by the Company were such as to necessitate removal from his employment location at the time and that efforts were made to try and accommodate him elsewhere. Therefore, in all the circumstances of this case, the Court cannot accept that he was unfairly dismissed.
However, the Court recommends that he should be paid the sum of €500 in lieu of notice not given.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
26th September, 2005______________________
AH/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.