FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DE ROYAL LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY ARTHUR COX SOLICITORS - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Dismissal
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker commenced employment with the Company on the 13th February, 2007, as a general operative/forklift driver. The Company's case is as follows: on the morning of 21st September, 2007, it was noted that the worker was responsible for holding up production on the shop floor. When the worker's manager spoke to him he noticed a strong smell of drink off the worker, who admitted that he had been drinking the night before. Following consultation with Human Resources (HR) it was decided in the interest of safety, as the Company did not want him driving the forklift truck, to send the worker home. He was informed the matter could be considered as gross misconduct. A disciplinary meeting took place between the worker, his manager and a members of the HR team. The worker, who is a foreign national, said that he understood what was being said and he declined to have a colleague present with him. The Company informed him that it had decided to terminate his employment and he was given two weeks' pay in lieu of notice. The worker asked for his P45 on the spot but was told that it would not be possible. The worker appealed the decision and two appeal meetings took place in January and February, 2008, at which the worker was represented by a union official. It was decided to uphold the decision to terminate the worker's employment.
The worker referred his case to the Labour Court on the 23rd April, 2008, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 13th June, 2008. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker had successfully completed his 6-month probationary period but the Company chose to extend it for another three months. He was entitled to a permanent contract after six months.The worker received no review of his employment during the probationary period as per the contract of employment.
2. The worker was dismissed for gross misconduct but the Company Handbook/ Disciplinary Procedure does not have a procedure for gross misconduct but has one for serious misconduct. The Company breached procedures by not suspending the worker first.
3. The worker could have been placed on other duties on the day he was dismissed. He admits that there was a smell of drink off him but denies that he was drunk. He had a discipline-free record up the incident in question.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was still clearly under the influence of alcohol on the morning in question. In the interest of health and safety the Company had no choice but to send him home. The Company was within its rights to dismiss the worker for what was gross misconduct.
2. The worker was given every opportunity to explain his position at a number of disciplinary meetings and he also had Union representation at these meetings.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the positions of both parties as expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court is of the view that the disciplinary procedures adopted by the Company were appropriate in the circumstances; prior warnings had been given, the worker was afforded and opportunity to be represented at disciplinary hearings into the matter, his actions warranted a serious disciplinary sanction and he was afforded an opportunity to appeal his dismissal.
The Court is satisfied that the Company’s decision to terminate his employment was an adequate response in the circumstances outlined and is satisfied that its procedures were not in breach of the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures S.I. No 146 of 2000.
Therefore, the Court upholds the Company’s decision to dismiss the worker under the circumstances.
Consequently, the worker’s claim fails.
The Court so finds.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
20th June, 2008______________________
CONDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.