FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : TOP SECURITY LTD (REPRESENTED BY MANANGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY INDEPENDENT WORKERS UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-041542-IR-06/JT.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Worker concerned joined the Company in 2003 as a Security Officer and remained in employment until the 9th June, 2005, when he was summarily dismissed.
The Company alleges that the Worker left his place of work without authorisation and was therefore in serious breach of duty. The Worker denies this allegation and claims that he received permission to leave his place of work and accompany a driver to a filling station to get petrol.
The issue was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. His recommendation issued on the 19th July, 2007, as follows:-
"I have considered the written submission made by the claimant. I recommend that his dismissal was unfair and award €20,000."
The Company, who did not attend the Rights Commissioner hearing, appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 30th July, 2007, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 25th October, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.The Worker maintains that he received permission from the Control Officer to leave the premises and accompany the Mobile Security Officer to a filling station for petrol.
2. The Worker believed that he was operating in line with custom and practice which had beenexplained to him and which he had witnessed in operation over previous months.
3. The Worker denies emphatically that he received a copy of the Code of Conduct on joining the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company stated that it was unaware that the Rights Commissioner hearing was taking place and therefore did not have the opportunity to make a case.
2. The Company maintainS that the Worker did receive and sign for a copy of the Code of Conduct on joining the Company in January 2003.
3. The Company is of the opinion that the Worker was fully aware who his Supervisor was and who 'Control' was.
DECISION:
The parties made detailed written and oral submissions on this matter. There is direct conflict between the parties on the facts of many crucial aspects of the case. The Court has found it impossible to resolve this conflict.
The Court, however, is of the view that the manner and circumstances of the Claimant's dismissal and its summary nature, along with the language difficulties encountered at the time, rendered the Claimant's dismissal technically unfair, in the view of the Court.
The Court varies the Rights Commissioner's recommendation to an award of €2,500 in compensation.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
7th November, 2007______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.