FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MICHAEL MC NAMARA & COMPANY - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Alleged unfair Dismissal
BACKGROUND:
2. The Worker was employed by the Company as a Finishing Foreman starting in March 2007 and he remained in this position until his dismissal in February, 2008. During this time the quality of his work was regarded as being of a high standard but issues arose which resulted in disciplinary action been taken against him. Finally, what the Company considered to be unauthorised absence from work and failure to contact Management resulted in his dismissal. The Worker strenuously disputes the background and allegations as presented by the Company.
On the 22nd May 2008 the Worker 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 27th June, 2008.
The Worker agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Doctor's Medical Certificates were hand delivered and left in a designated pigeon hole for Management's attention.
2. When informed that the Medical Certificates were missing the Worker immediately had copies issued by his GP to Management.
3. The Worker was employed on a full time and permanent basis.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Worker as a result of a previous incident had already been issued with a Final Written Warning on 30th October, 2007 which had a lifespan of 12 months. The issue was of a sufficiently serious nature to warrant dismissal but it was decided that one final opportunity would be afforded to him with the understanding that any further offence could result in dismissal.
2. The principles of natural justice have been applied and the Company's procedures were followed. The decision to dismiss was taken by a Manager who was not involved in any way in the investigation.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the written and oral presentations made by the parties at the hearing, the Court decides, on balance that the claim cannot succeed and so recommends in favour of the Company.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
10th July, 2008______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.