FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : P.W.A INTERNATIONAL LTD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY RODERICK MAGUIRE B.L., INSTRUCTED BY DANIEL SPRING AND COMPANY, SOLICITORS) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation r-068093-ir-08/GC.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Worker has been an employee of PWA International Ltd from 1990 to March 2008, when he claims he was unfairly dismissed by the Company. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 4th March, 2009 the Rights Commissioner issued the following Recommendation:-
- “It is regrettable that the employee in this case with over seventeen years service found himself in the position where the company dismissed him. However, from all the evidence and submissions, the company had no other option. [The employee] was given many opportunities to present his side of the story but his failure to attend meetings with PWA or make contact with his union representative meant he did not avail of the opportunity in what was advised to him on a number of occasions was the serious circumstances of his position. I have considered all theevidence in the case and cannot find that the company acted unfairly in dismissing [the employee]”.
- “It is regrettable that the employee in this case with over seventeen years service found himself in the position where the company dismissed him. However, from all the evidence and submissions, the company had no other option. [The employee] was given many opportunities to present his side of the story but his failure to attend meetings with PWA or make contact with his union representative meant he did not avail of the opportunity in what was advised to him on a number of occasions was the serious circumstances of his position. I have considered all theevidence in the case and cannot find that the company acted unfairly in dismissing [the employee]”.
3. 1. The Worker was unaware that he was required to continue providing medical certificates once he had ceased to be paid by the Company.
2. Although the Worker did not cash the social welfare payments he informed the Company that he would pay back these sums to the Company as soon as he was in a position to do so.
3.The Worker was unable to engage with the Company because he was suffering from depression and anxiety.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Worker was dismissed as a result of his continued unauthorised absense, his lack of communication with the Company during his absence and his failure to return social welfare payments in accordance with the Company sick pay scheme.
2. The Worker was afforded every opportunity to discuss any issues with the Company but he failed to do so.
3. The Worker's employment was terminated in line with the Company's disciplinary procedure, Statutory Instrument No. 146 of 2001 and the principles of natural justice.
DECISION:
Having considered the oral and written submissions of the parties, the Court has come to the view, on the balance of probabilities, that it prefers the Company's case. The Court accordingly confirms the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation and so desides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
13th July, 2009______________________
JMcCRaymond McGee
Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.