FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : POSITIVE CARE IRELAND (REPRESENTED BY PENINSULA) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Unfair Dismissal
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns the alleged unfair dismissal of an employee of Solis Positive Care Ireland. Management's position is that the worker was dismissed during her probationary period for gross misconduct. Management contends that the worker divulged private information in relation to the employment status of another worker and was dismissed on that basis. The Union's position is that the worker was dismissed without having access to union representation at a disciplinary meeting for the alleged offence. The Union further contends that the worker was not afforded an opportunity to formally respond to the allegations that were put to her.
On the 5th August, 2011 the worker referred the matter to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on 30th November, 2011.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The worker was not given an opportunity to respond to the false allegations that were made against her. She was not allowed have trade union representation in relation to the alleged incidents and was dismissed without being afforded natural justice.
2 The same member of management was appointed to hear the appeal that was involved in the initial disciplinary process. This is inappropriate and potentially biased.
3 Another member of staff who was alleged to have been involved in the sharing of the same confidential information was given a verbal warning whereas the claimant in the case was summarily dismissed.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The worker conveyed private information about another member of staff and made reference to the other worker's employment status with the organisation. This is a clear breach of Company policy and is unacceptable in the workplace
2 The Company requires that all staff adhere to its rules in relation to confidentiality. On the basis of the breach of policy and that the worker was on probation, management had no option but to dismiss her from its employment
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of both parties to the case.
The Court finds that the phrasing of the charges levelled against the worker in this case were irresponsible, ill conceived, inappropriate and profoundly prejudicial to her good name and professional standing in the sector.
The Court further finds that the procedures employed by the company were seriously flawed.
Taking both of these factors into account the Court finds that the decision to dismiss the worker in this case on the stated grounds was not and could not be justified and was severely prejudicial to her future employment in the sector.
Accordingly, the Court finds that the worker was dismissed unfairly and with prejudice. Accordingly the Court recommends that the worker be paid compensation in the sum of €10,000 within six weeks of the date of this recommendation.
Because of the prejudicial nature of the correspondence on file in this case the Court recommends that all of the offending documents be removed from the file and destroyed.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
20th December 2011______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.