FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DUBLIN WATERWORLD MANAGEMENT LIMITED (NATIONAL AQUATIC CENTRE) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Re-instatement.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case concerns a dispute between Dublin Waterworld Management Limited and a former employee in relation to his dismissal. The worker was employed as a cleaner at the National Aquatic Centre, Blanchardstown from 22nd May, 2005, until 19th April,
2006.
The Union is claiming that following an accident at work, which resulted in damage to Company property the worker was dismissed without a proper investigation into the incident. The Union also contends that no previous warnings had been given in relation to the workers performance, nor was he allowed be represented at meetings with management on the issue.
The Company's position is that a previous incident had occurred but had not been acted upon by the Company. In this instance the Company claim that the damage to the property was done maliciously, was captured on video and was witnessed by another employee. The worker was dismissed on the basis of gross misconduct.
On the 2nd of August, 2006, the Union referred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed that the worker would be bound by the Court's Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 26th October, 2006.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Worker was not afforded natural justice in that he was not given the opportunity to be represented at a meeting with management.
2. There had been no formal training given in the use of the machine that caused the damage.
3. The Company refused to adhere to normal dispute resolution procedures with regard to this matter, instead dismissing the worker on the grounds of gross misconduct.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There had been a similar incident previously, which the company accepted as an accident. In this instance the damage to the door was done maliciously, was captured on CCTV and was witnessed by another employee.
2.The Company provided all the relevant training to the worker in the initial stages of his employment and after the first incident. The Company made every effort to train and re-train the worker in the use of the machine but the fact that the damage was done deliberately left the Company with no option but to dismiss the worker.
3. The worker was informed of the seriousness of the situation and was advised that a represntative could accompany him to the initial disciplinary meeting. The worker chose to attend the meeting alone.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court is of the view that the procedures adopted by the Company in this instance were not in compliance with their own Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures.
Consequently, the Court is of the view that the summary dismissal of the claimant was not appropriate in the circumstances and recommends that the claimant should be re-instated with immediate effect. However, due to the serious nature of the incident, which occurred the Court recommends that he should be placed at Stage 3 of the Company’s Disciplinary Procedures. Additionally, in accordance with that provided at Stage 1 he should be given counselling and further training on equipment. Counselling should include details on the consequences of any further breaches of safety.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
14th November, 2006______________________
AH/MC.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.