FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : HALCYON CONTRACT CLEANING SERVICES LIMITED - AND - TWO WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal / compensation.
BACKGROUND:
2. The claim before the Court concerns two Workers who are seeking compensation for unfair dismissal from the Company.
The Workers had begun working for the Company as contract cleaners on a number of sites. Their primary work area was at Heatons Store on Childers Road. During the course of their employment they claim they had difficulties with local management and sought a meeting with a company Director. The Workers claim that they were advised on the 1st October, 2006 that their employment was being terminated from the previous day.
The Company did not make a written submission but sent a letter to the Court stating their reasons for not attending. A Company Director subsequently attended the Court hearing and made an oral submission.
The Company stated that the work of the Workers concerned was below an acceptable standard and that they had received a verbal warning and further training. On 15th August, 2008 a written warning was issued to both Workers. On 28th September, 2006 the Company sent letters of dismissal to both Workers terminating their employment from 20th September, 2006. A weeks' pay in lieu of notice issued.
The issue could not be resolved at local level. The Workers referred the claim to the Labour Court on the 8th January, 2007 in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 27th November, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.The Union maintains that the Employer has acted in contravention of S.I. 146 of 2000 and has denied the Workers the right of reply, the right of representation and the right of appeal.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company maintains that they followed procedures in giving the verbal and written warnings.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of both parties, the Court is of the view that the workers were summarily dismissed without going through the appropriate procedures, the Company did not conduct an appeal hearing and did not respond to their Union’s request for a meeting to discuss the dismissals.
The Court is of the view that the disciplinary procedures adopted by the Company were not carried out in accordance with Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures S.I. No 146 of 2000 and accordingly finds that the workers were unfairly dismissed.
Consequently, in all the circumstances of this case, the Court recommends that an award of compensation is appropriate and recommends that the Company should pay the sum of €500 to each of the workers, in full and final settlement of the claim.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
20th December, 2007______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.