FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ALAN & JACINTA O' SULLIVAN T/A AOS SECURITY SOLUTIONS (REPRESENTED BY BEST & CO SOLICITORS) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY COAKLEY MOLONEY SOLICITORS) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Appeal Of A Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-057038-IR-07/JOC
BACKGROUND:
2. The Claimant worked for the Respondent from October 2006 until July 2007. The Respondent received a number of complaints about the Claimant's conduct. The Claimant alleges that he was unfairly dismissed, with no reason given, by the Respondent. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. The Employer did not attend the Rights Commissioner hearing and on the 12th May, 2008 the Rights Commissioner issued the following Recommendation:-
- “Based on the uncontested evidence I award the claimant €5,000 in compensation”.
On the 17th June, 2008, the Employer appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.A Labour Court hearing took place on the 17th September, 2008, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS
3. 1. The Respondent unfairly dismissed the Claimant, allegedly because he had been endeavouring to obtain alternative employment elsewhere in the security industry.
2. The Respondent failed to pay the Claimant his contracted rate of pay.
3.The Respondent acted contrary to natural justice and fair procedures.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.Several serious complaints were made concerning the Claimant's behaviour while working for the Respondent.
2. Several attempts were made to find the Claimant more suitable work locations but complaints continued to be made against him.
3. The Claimant was dismissed by the Respondent because of his poor performance; repeated and serious breaches of the Respondent's Code of Conduct; and the lack of suitable work locations.
DECISION:
Having considered the positions of both parties as expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court accepts that the Company has invoked its disciplinary procedures against the worker for breaches of the Code of Conduct, when it reached a point that due to Client complaints it exhausted all avenues open to it and found itself with no work location to place the worker. Therefore, it had no alternative but to let the worker go and in those circumstances the Court accepts that the procedures adopted by the Company were in line with its disciplinary procedures.
Accordingly, the Court does not find in favour of the worker’s claim that he was unfairly dismissed. In these circumstances, the Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is overturned. The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
16th October, 2008______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.