FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : JOHNSON MOONEY & O'BRIEN - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY MICHAEL CORCORAN) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Compensation and reinstatement
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed by the Company from the 10th of October, 2006, to the 30th March, 2007, when he was dismissed. His case is as follows: on the 29th March, 2007, at 4.45 a.m. whilst on a break the worker was approached by a factory manager and asked to carry out some duties of another employee who went home at 3.00 a.m. The worker replied that he had earlier carried out other duties not normally assigned to him and that the worker who should have done the work had left early. He also pointed out that he was on a legal break.
When the worker reported for work the next day he was told to report to the general manager who asked him to apologise to the factory manager. The worker refused, believing that he had no reason to apologise. He was given a further 24 hours to think about the situation and, the following day, without having changed his mind he was dismissed immediately. He was given three days to appeal his case to the Managing Director. He did so but the Managing Director upheld the dismissal.
The worker referred his case to the Labour Court on the 27th August, 2007, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 29th November, 2007. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. The Company did not attend the Court hearing but in a letter to the Court stated that it had no case to answer as the worker had refused to obey a valid instruction and that the Company had followed fair procedures.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was within his rights to refuse to do the work requested of him. Two other employees had already refused to do the work but were not disciplined. The worker who should have been assigned the task frequently went home at 3.00 a.m. instead of 5.00 a.m. which was his finishing time.
2. The worker was a very conscientious employee with an excellent record. The Company did not follow fair procedures in line with its own employee's handbook.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court finds it regrettable that the employer failed to attend the hearing to investigate the worker’s claim. The employer did furnish the Court with a written statement setting out its position.
On the basis of the evidence before it, the Court is satisfied that the worker's dismissal was grossly unfair.
The Court notes that the worker had made great efforts to mitigate his loss since his dismissal and in all the circumstances of the case, the Court recommends that the employer should pay the claimant compensation in the amount of €10, 000 and should reinstate him in his previous job in the Company.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
11th December, 2007______________________
CONDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.