FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : GMC CIVIL & MECHANICAL ENGINEERING LIMITED - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed the Company from 25th of January,2005, to 18th of January, 2006, as a lorry driver. The Union's case is as follows: on the 9th of January, 2006, the worker was asked to collect a load in Naas and deliver it to a site in Dublin City Centre. Because of the nature of the load the crane on the back of the lorry had to remain slightly elevated. Whilst transporting the load the crane struck the rail bridge on Custom House Quay causing damage to the crane. The worker reported the incident. The cost of the damage was €17,797. Following the incident the worker was told to drive a spare lorry. On the 12th of January, 2006, the worker was approached by management and told that he was to be let go as a result of the accident three days earlier.
The Company's case is that the incident constituted an act of gross negligence and misconduct and that it was within the Company's remit to dismiss him.
The Union referred the case to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 7th of June 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker had no disciplinary action against him for the duration of his employment. He had never had an accident with this Company or any previous employer.
2. The Company did not follow proper procedures in dismissing the worker. He was given no warnings nor was he allowed representation when told of his dismissal.
3. The Union attempted on a number of occasions to appeal the decision. A meeting was eventually set up but the worker was not allowed to attend. Members of Management involved in the dismissal were also not present. The Union had no choice but to refer the case to the Labour Court.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The damage to the crane came about as a result of gross negligence, carelessness and breach of duties. The worker had been reminded on a number of occasions about safety procedures in using the lorry. On this occasion he did not follow procedure.
2. The Company conducted a full investigation into the incident. The worker's explanation that he "just didn't notice" the height-clearance sign on the bridge is no excuse.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the oral and written submissions made to it in this case.
There can be no doubt that the incident which occurred on 9th January, 2006, was due to gross negligence and was serious enough to warrant the most severe disciplinary sanctions.
The Company's lack of procedures and apparent total disregard for a worker's basic rights as set out in the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures No. SI 146/2000, which lays down best practice in this area, render the method of dismissal procedurally unfair.
The Court, accordingly, recommends that the Company pays to the claimant compensation of €5,000 in full and final settlement of the matter.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
27th June, 2007______________________
CON/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.