FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : GRAFTON RECRUITMENT (REPRESENTED BY BEAUCHAMPS SOLICITORS) - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Appeal of a Recommendation of a Rights Commissioner No. R-088555-IR-09/RG.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Worker concerned entered into a contract for the provision of temporary services with Grafton Recruitment Company on the 4th March 2009. He joined the Agency from the NRS Agency which previously had a contract with Wincanton for the provision of temporary workers.
The Worker was employed on the evening shift as a loader in the Wincanton warehouse starting at 7pm and working to 3.00 or 4.00am. Occasionally, during busy periods, he was required to work additional hours for which he was paid overtime.
On the 23rd October 2009 the Worker did not wish to work overtime and a dispute occurred with this Supervisor. Wincanton informed the Agency that it did not want the Worker back on site and following a meeting with the Agency on the 29th October 2009 the Worker was summarily dismissed.
The issue was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. The Agency did not attend this hearing as it did not receive notice. The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation issued on the 23rd September 2010 as follows:-
" On the uncontested evidence of the Claimant, I declare the Claimant was unfairly dismissed from his employment with Grafton Recruitment.
I recommend the Employer pay the Claimant compensation of €5,000 within six weeks of the date of this Recommendation."
The Employer appealed the Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner to the Labour Court on the 13th October 2010, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 31st May 2011.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Worker maintains that he did not use bad language to his Supervisor or at the meeting with Grafton Recruitment or behave inappropriately.
2. The Worker maintains that he never received a copy of the Company's Grievance Procedure and was not given any chance to defend himself.
AGENCY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Agency maintains that the Worker was aggressive in its meeting with him and also used inappropriate language.
2. The Agency maintains that as Wincanton had refused to take the Worker back it had no option but to dismiss him. The matter was out of their control.
DECISION:
The Court is satisfied that the Claimant in this case is a worker within the meaning of s.23(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990 and is a proper party to a trade dispute concerning the circumstances in which his contract with Grafton Recruitment was terminated.
Having considered all the relevant facts in the case the Court has come to the view that the procedure followed by Grafton Recruitment was deficient. The Court believes that in summoning the claimant to the meeting on the 29th October 2009 the Agency should have expressly informed him of the seriousness of the situation and that his employment was in jeopardy. He should also have been advised that he could avail of representation at the meeting.
In all the circumstances the Court is satisfied that the Claimant is entitled to some compensation but not in the amount recommended by the Rights Commissioner. The Court is satisfied that an award of €1,000 is more appropriate.
The recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is varied accordingly.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
7th June 2011______________________
MG.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.