FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : FEDERAL SECURITY SOLUTIONS LIMITED - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation r-060555-ir-08/JT.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the Worker's claim that he was unfairly dismissed by the Company as a result of serious allegations made against him. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 22nd January, 2009 the Rights Commissioner issued the following Recommendation:-
- “Both parties made detailed submissions in regard to the incident that took place and the investigation of the matter. The Claimant was also invited to make any comments he thought relevant. Having carefully considered this case I have decided that the respondents indeed had grounds for terminating the Claimant's employment. I therefore do not find the claim well founded and therefore it fails”.
- “Both parties made detailed submissions in regard to the incident that took place and the investigation of the matter. The Claimant was also invited to make any comments he thought relevant. Having carefully considered this case I have decided that the respondents indeed had grounds for terminating the Claimant's employment. I therefore do not find the claim well founded and therefore it fails”.
3. 1. TheCompany did not properly inform the Worker of the allegations made against him.
2.The Company did not properly investigate these allegations.
3.The Company denied the Worker natural justice in its handling of the complaint made against him.
DECISION:
This is an appeal by the Worker against a Rights Commissioner's Recommendation, which found that his Employer had grounds for terminating his employment and consequently did not uphold his claim for unfair dismissal.
The Worker appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation to this Court, on the grounds that the investigation into complaints alleged against him were not properly investigated by his Employer and he was not properly informed of all allegations made against him. Furthermore, he appealed on the grounds that his Employer did not supply him with written details of the reasons for his dismissal.
His final ground of appeal related to the non-supply of his P45, however the Court notes that he has been issued with his P45 since he made his appeal to the Court.
The Court was informed that the Company was in Receivership and consequently it was not possible to have employer representation available to attend the appeal hearing.
The Court considered the oral and written submissions supplied by the Appellant. Included in the documents he submitted into evidence were copies of both his own and the Employer's submission to the Rights Commissioner, copies of statements of allegations made against him, witnesses statements and his comments on each.
There is no dispute that the Worker was supplied with details of the main complaints made against him, which related to allegations concerning a junior female employee, one week in advance of the disciplinary meeting on 24th July 2007 (the meeting which resulted in the termination of his employment). However, the Court has concluded that the other "allegations" that he refers to were more in the line of corroborative statements about his behaviour in support of the main allegations made against him. He was given access to one of these witness statements prior to the disciplinary meeting on 24th July 2007, however there is no evidence to indicate that he was supplied with details of other witness statements prior to his dismissal.
In relation to the ground of appeal that he was not supplied with written details of the reasons for his dismissal, the Court notes that a letter setting out the reasons for his dismissal was sent to his representative on 21st February 2008, however this was a number of months after his dismissal and his appeal hearing.
Having reviewed all of the data and in particular the material detailing the Worker's version of events; his comments on the statements made by others and his own statements to the Court, the Court is of the view that his behaviour was wholly inappropriate particularly where it related to a junior female employee. The Court has also formed the view that he took no heed of forewarnings given to him by colleagues concerning his behaviour and that he denied and continues to deny that his behaviour was anything more that "banter".
In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Court finds that the failure by the Company to present details of some witness statements and the failure to supply him with details of his dismissal in a timely fashion were procedural flaws and were not in keeping with the rules of natural justice.
As the Court has been supplied with sufficient material on both sides position to reach a conclusion on the gravity of the allegations made, it has concluded that while there were some procedural flaws the Claimant was afforded an opportunity to respond to allegations made before the decision was taken to dismiss him and he was represented at the disciplinary meeting. Furthermore, he had a right of appeal to a more senior member of management, which he availed of and at which he was again represented. The Court is satisfied that the appeal was conducted in a procedurally correct manner and he was informed by letter dated 5th September 2007 that his appeal was rejected.
In all circumstance of this case, the Court concurs with the Rights Commissioner's view that the Employer had valid grounds for terminating his employment in July 2007, however, there were some procedural deficits in the manner in which the Claimant was dismissed and therefore he is entitled to compensation for the manner of his dismissal. The Court is of the view that the amount of compensation warranted in this case should be a nominal amount and accordingly, recommends that the sum of €250.00 should be paid to the Worker in full and final settlement of this claim.
Accordingly, the Court varies the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
19th May, 2010______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.