FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : JAMES'S COACHES - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal
BACKGROUND:
2. The Worker was employed by James's Coaches from January, 2004, as a Bus Driver for the St. Raphael's School contract until his dismissal on 13th July, 2007. The Worker had previously retired from Bus Eireann after 44 years' service during which time he gained merit for his safe and careful driving skills. Management initially were happy with his performance but over time it was noted that damage had been done to the bus and a number of incidents were reported alleging careless driving. This in turn led to his dismissal which the Union claims was without any adherence to proper procedures.
On the 3rd June, 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 20th August, 2008.
The Worker agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Worker has a long and unblemished record for safe and careful driving and he disputes that he was notified either verbally or in writing that the Company had any concerns in relation to his driving safety.
2. The phone call informing him of his dismissal which he received from Managementon the evening of Friday 13th July, 2007, was, he claims, the first time he was made aware of any problems or concerns that Management had about his work. His dismissal therefore was effected without due process or fair procedures and without any opportunity for him to be properly represented.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Initially the Worker proved himself to be reliable and trustworthy and generally the feedback from the customers was positive but unfortunately over time a number of accidents and incidents occurred that put a strain on the good relationship between Management and Worker.
2. Reports alleging careless driving by the Worker were received by Management, who then became concerned for the safety of the children and passengers on the bus. A request was sent to the Company asking that another Driver should be put in charge of the school bus.
3. The Driver was always made aware of the allegations of careless driving and the on-going difficulties in securing Public Service Vehicle insurance for him to continue as a Driver.The damage sustained by the bus on the 13th July, 2007, forced Management to take the decision to dismiss.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is apparent to the Court that the Claimant’s standard of driving was a serious concern to his employer and this ultimately gave rise to the decision to terminate his employment.
Having considered the submissions of both parties the Court is satisfied that the Claimant had been put on notice that his employment was in jeopardy, however, there were procedural defects in the manner in which his employment ceased and the dismissal was not carried out in accordance with the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures S.I. No 146 of 2000. In particular, the Claimant was not afforded the opportunity to be represented by a colleague or a recognised Trade Union Official.
In all the circumstances of this case, the Court recommends that the Claimant be paid compensation in the amount of €500.00.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
2nd September, 2008______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.