FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : BOYLAN PRINT GROUP - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY BRANIGAN & MATTHEWS SOLICITORS) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal Against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation r-033177-ir-05/JC
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns an appeal by the employer of Rights Commissioners Recommendation r-033177-ir-05/JC. The dispute concerns a former employee of the Company who worked as a General Operative from March 2004 until January 2005. On 26th January, 2005, the employee was alleged to have made an error which, in the opinion of the employer, amounted to gross negligence. The employee was subsequently reprimanded by the Production Manager in front of other staff members and felt that he had no option but to resign his position as a result of the way he had been treated. The employee is claiming Constructive Dismissal while the employer contends that the employee left his employment of his own free will.
The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and Recommendation. Her Recommendation issued on 5th September 2005, as follows:
"On the uncontested evidence of the claimant I find that the respondent failed to follow fair and reasonable procedures when investigating their complaint against the complainant that he had made an error in the production process.I find that it was inappropriate to discuss the matter at the workstation and in full view and hearing of other employees and without giving the complainant prior notice. I find that the complainant was treated unfairly by the respondent in this matter.
I recommend that the respondent pay the claimant compensation in the sum of €1500 (net) in full and final settlement of his complaint and that this sum be paid within 6 weeks of the date of this decision."
On the 9th September, 2005 the employer appealed the Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court Hearing took place on 26th April, 2006.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS.
3. 1. The worker in question was not responsible for the error on the machine. He had tried to explain this to the Production Manager but to no avail.
2. The Claimant was not afforded fair procedure in relation to the investigation of the complaint. He was also reprimanded in front of other staff members which is inappropriate behaviour in the workplace. He subsequently left the premises so as not to aggravate matters further
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The error made by the Claimant amounted to gross negligence and could have resulted in severe losses to the Comapny.
2. The Claimant was not treated in an inappropriate manner by management nor was he dismissed. He left his employment of his own free will claiming he had another job to go to.
DECISION:
Having considered the oral and written submissions of the parties, the Court dismisses the appeal and upholds the Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
11th May 2006______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.