FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : CHUBB IRELAND LTD - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns the Company's dismissal of the Worker for what it claims was gross misconduct. The Worker claims that he was dismissed following a flawed investigation by the Company into unfounded allegations made against against him.
The Worker referred his case to the Labour Court on 12th November, 2009, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Worker agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on 6th April, 2010.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.The Worker had a good record prior to these incidents.
2.The Worker was blamed for one incident which had nothing to do with him, and he was unfairly singled out for blame in relation to the second incident.
3.The Worker has suffered significant financial loss through no fault of his own, has been unable to find alternative employment since his dismissal, and he sought to be compensated accordingly.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Worker was dismissed because of his failure to carry out his duties on two specific occasions which constituted gross misconduct.
2. The Company's investigation of these incidents was carried out in a thorough and fair manner.
3.The Company's reputation suffered as a result of the Worker's behaviour.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the the extensive oral and written submissions of both parties in this case. From the evidence outlined in the course of the hearing the Court is of the view that there were deficiencies in the thoroughness of the investigation carried out by the Company into the incidents that led to the decision to dismiss the Claimant. The Court is also satisfied that there is cause for doubt as to whether the Company was evenhanded in the manner in which it dealt with all of the parties who were directly or indirectly culpable in the events surrounding the incidents in question.
Accordingly the Court considers that the Claimant was unintentionally treated more harshly than others who were equally culpable in the various incidents that took place and recommends that the Claimant be paid the sum of €6,000 in full and final settlement of all claims against the Company. The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
21st April, 2010______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.