FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : KELLY SCAFFOLDING LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY ROBERT SWEENEY SOLICITOR) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Employee claims he was assaulted on site & then dismissed. No procedures followed
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was dismissed by the Company following an incident and alleged assault at the place of his employment. The Union argues that the worker was not given fair procedure and that the matter was not properly investigated. If it had been the result would have shown that the worker was not responsible. The Company contend the matter was investigated and due to the violent nature of the incident the worker was dismissed immediatly.
On the 18th March, 2008 the Union referred 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 the 30th July, 2008 The Union agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The worker was assaulted by his Foreman. He reported the incident. As a result of this he was summarily dismissed. No investigation was undertaken by the Company to establish the background of the incident.
2 No fair procedures were afforded the worker during his dismissal. The Company claim that the worker was dismissed as a result of poor work performance. At no stage was he notified that his work performance was not up to standard.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 Following investigation of the incident by the Company it is clear that the worker instigated the violence. He was therefore immediatly dismissed as violence against its employees is not tolerated by the Company.
2 The worker is fully aware of the reasons for his dismissal. All the employees of the company are members of the Union and at no time in the past has the Company been the subject of such allegations.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of both parties the Court is of the view that there were certain procedural defects in the investigation process into the incident which gave rise to the dismissal and the dismissal procedures adopted were not carried out in accordance with Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures S.I. No 146 0f 2000.
Therefore, the Court is of the view that the decision to terminate the employment was procedurally incorrect. In the circumstances, the Court recommends that the Claimant be paid compensation in the amount of €2,000.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
18th August, 2008______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.