FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : JOHN SISK & SON LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed by the Company as a Tower Crane Driver from 18th January, 2006, to 31st January, 2006. The Union claims that he was unfairly dismissed, something the Company denies.
The Company's case is that on the morning of 31st January, 2006, the worker was in his crane for approximately two hours but could not be contacted despite a number of telephone calls to him on his mobile phone. The Company alleges that when the worker did come down there was a strong smell of alcohol from him and also from the crane cabin. The worker refutes the allegations and claims that he was dismissed immediately. The Company maintains that he resigned the following morning.
The worker referred his case to the Labour Court on the 10th April, 2007, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 26th of September, 2007, in Limerick. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1. The Company could have suspended the worker while an investigation took place. Instead it dismissed him immediately.
2. The worker could not be contacted in the crane as his mobile phone had no power.
3. The worker is adamant that he was sober and alert on the morning in question.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1. Management made numerous attempts for two hours to contact the worker on his mobile phone and on the site radio without success.His mobile phone was not "dead"as claimed but "rang out". He left the site despite being asked to stay on.
2. The worker telephoned the site manager the following morning and resigned his position.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions of the parties and the evidence given by those involved in the incident leading to the dispute.
On balance the Court prefers the recollection of events given on behalf of the Company. Accordingly, the Court has concluded that the Claimant resigned and was not dismissed.
Accordingly, the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
11th October, 2007.______________________
CON.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.