FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : BOURKE WASTE REMOVAL LTD (REPRESENTED BY JAMES HANLEY & CO SOLICITORS) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Wrongful Dismissal
BACKGROUND:
2. The Claimant commenced employment with the Company in September, 2004, as a General Operative working on the refuse collection service until termination of his employment in July, 2005. The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union of alleged wrongful dismissal of its member, the Claimant.
- The Union contends that the Claimant had agreed a daily finishing time of 4.p.m with his Employer for personal domestic reasons. During the Claimant's employment the Employer refused to accept that the Claimant could not work past 4.p.m. When the Claimant made appeals to Management in relation to his finishing time, he was threatened with dismissal.
The Employer rejects the claim on the basis that the position within the Company was that all employees commenced work at 7.a.m. and finished at 4.p.m. five days a week. However, it was explained to all employees that if all work was completed prior to 4.p.m. they were free to leave. The employees agreed to reciprocate on the basis that if the work extended beyond 4.p.m, they would work the extra time, and there would be no question of overtime.- On the 23rd August, 2005, the Unionreferred 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 9th May, 2006.
- On the 23rd August, 2005, the Unionreferred 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 9th May, 2006.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Employer gave no logical or reasonable explanation as to why the Claimant was dismissed. It is the Union's understanding that the Employer believed that he had the right to hire and fire at will without taking cognisance of the normal industrial relations procedures or the rights of the employees.
2. The Employer not only wrongfully dismissed the Claimant, but has also been less than co-operative with the Union's attempts to have the matter resolved at the earliest opportunity.
3. The Claimant commenced employment with the Company on the clear understanding that his finish time would be 4.p.m, however, once he was hired his employer moved the goal posts. No written contract exists and none was offered to the Claimant. The Claimant is currently in employment but compensation is being sought for the period where he was unemployed through no fault of his own.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Claimant did not appear to have the ability to work any type of machinery and during his employment it was difficult at various times to position him within the Company. There were a number of occasions where another employee had to complete the Claimants work. He never appeared to be happy with his job, he was always complaining.
2. The Claimant was let go because of his work practices and unsuitability for the job. He had been given various warnings by the Company. He was not let go on the basis of his Trade Union membership. The Claimant's employment was within a twelve month period. He received all holiday pay and monies due up to the date of his departure.
3. The Claimant was not dismissed.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has no doubt that the Claimant's employment came to an end by dismissal. The Court is also satisfied that the Employer failed to follow fair procedures in coming to the decision to dismiss the Claimant. In particular the Employer failed to observe the procedural provisions of the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedure (S.I 146 of 2000). On that basis alone the dismissal was unfair.
In all circumstances of this case the Court recommends that the Employer pay to the Claimant compensation in the amount of €4,000 in full and final settlement of his claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
16th May, 2006______________________
JO'CChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Joanne O'Connor, Court Secretary.