FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MCINERNEY HOMES LTD (REPRESENTED BY MCMAHON O'BRIEN DOWNES SOLICITORS) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Alleged Unfair Dismissal / Compensation
BACKGROUND:
2. The Claimant worked for the Company from October 2005 until his dismissal in June 2006. The claim before the Court is for compensation for the unfair dismissal of the Worker and as result of this he could not find employment for 9 months. The Company contends that following a number of warnings in relation to his behaviour while on site, the Claimant was given two weeks notice and thereafter dismissed.
On the 8th January, 2007 the Union referred the the issue to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 8th October, 2007. The Union agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 At the time the Company issued a warning in May 2006 to the Claimant, he was not afforded the right of representation, the right of reply or the right of appeal as required by the terms of SI146 of 2000.
2 The Company acted outside of procedures and the substantive reasons given for dismissal by the Company did not justify the termination of the Claimants employment.
3 The substantive reasons given by the Company for the Claimant's dismissal are dubious. The Claimant's entitlement to natural justice was completely compromised by the actions of his employer.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The Claimant was the subject of a number of warnings concerning his behaviour which cumulatively was more than sufficient to justify dismissal.
2 In respect of at least one complaint the Claimant put the health and safety of another employee in danger. In May 2006 a formal letter was issued to the Claimant and this should have been an indication to him that he was on his last chance
3 The Claimant did not make a formal written appeal of any of the disciplinary actions taken against him, therefore he cannot now complain of unfair procedures.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the oral and written submissions made by the parties, the Court is of the view that not only are the Company's disciplinary procedures out of line with current norms, in particular with the terms of SI No. 146/2000, but the Company signally failed in several ways to follow the terms of the existing procedures as written.
The Court, while advising the Company to review its procedures as a matter of urgency, finds that the Claimant was unfairly dismissed and in all circumstances, awards him compensation in the amount of €15,000.
The Court so recommends
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
13th November, 2007______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.