FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : G4S SECURITY SERVICES (IRELAND) LTD - AND - SIPTU DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner Recommendation No: r-77857-ir-09/MR
BACKGROUND:
2. This case is an appeal by the worker of Rights Commissioner Recommendation No: r-77857-ir-09/MR. The issue concerns a Security Operative who was dismissed for allegedly refusing to attend work at a designated work location. The worker contends that he was employed on a site specific contract but was subsequently requested to move location which was in breach of his contract. He further contends that the reason for his dismissal was related to his activities within the Union. Management refute the assertions in relation to the trade union activities and are of the view that the worker was aware that there is a mobility requirement within the industry.
The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. His Recommendation issued on the 9th September, 2010 and found that in all the circumstances the Company had acted in a reasonable manner and that the dismissal was not unfair.
On the 26th October 2010, the worker appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearingtook place on the 15th November, 2011.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The worker was informed at interview that he was recruited for a "site specific" position within the Company. When the worker refused to comply with a direction that he felt was a breach of contract, he was informed that he must change work location or face disciplinary action. The worker was not given the opportunity to raise a grievance and work at the new location under protest while the matter was processed through the appropriate channels.
2 The worker was actively engaged in union activity and is of the view that this is the reason for his dismissal. As management did not allow the worker to process his grievance in relation to the new work location, it failed in its duty of care to the worker and denied him fair procedure.
MANAGEMENT ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The worker was well aware that while he did work at a specific location, a mobility clause exists in the sector which requires security operatives to change work locations to fit in with the needs of the business. The worker refused to carry out reasonable management instructions and given the number and nature of the refusals, management had no option but to dismiss him from his employment.
2 The Company has no difficulty with its employees being members of a trade union or with staff being involved in trade union activities. The worker's assertion that he was dismissed as a result of these activities is abolsutely denied.
DECISION:
It is clear on the facts of this case that the Claimant's dismissal arose from his refusal to carry out his duties at the location to which he was assigned. It is also clear that he company were entitled to assign the Claimant to the location in question.
The union have claimed that there were procedural defects in the investigation conducted by the Company leading to the decision to dismiss the Claimant. The Claimant was represented by his Union Official in the investigation conducted by the Company and these matters were not raised. Nor were they raised in the hearing before the Rights Commissioner.
The Court is fully satisfied that the procedures followed by the Company were in accordance with normal standards of fairness. The Court is also satisfied that decision to terminate the Claimants employment was fair and reasonable in all the circumstances. The recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is affirmed and the appeal is disallowed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
5th December 2011______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.