FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : TEMPLE BAR HOTEL (REPRESENTED BY PENINSULA BUSINESS SERVICES (IRELAND) LTD) - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Unfair dismissal
BACKGROUND:
2. The Worker was employed with the Company from 19th June, 2006 until 27th May, 2011. In the early hours of the morning of 27th April, 2011 there was an altercation between the worker and some guests during his night shift. The guests asked for his assistance with a vending machine which had failed to release their purchase. The guests were not happy with the help they recieved and asked to see the night Manager. The guests alleged to the night manager that the worker was aggressive towards them and made a formal complaint. The Worker denies the allegation. He contends that he followed the Company's policy for incidents such as this and was courteous to the guests at all times. The Worker was invited to attend a disciplinary hearing. The Company did not accept his explanation of events. The Company dismissed him by letter of 27th May, 2011
On the 7th November, 2011 the Worker referred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 18th January, 2012. The Worker agreed to be bound by the Recommendation of the Court.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The Worker carried out Company policy. His conduct at work was at all times professional.
2 The Company did not apply fair procedures in carrying out the dismissal. No system of warnings was given to the Worker and he was not properly notified of his right to appeal the decision to dismiss him.
3 The hotel did not conduct a proper investigation into the incident and as a result the Worker's rights were abused.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 There are statements from two colleagues and a review on Trip Advisor website which corroborate that the Worker had behaved in an inappropriate and aggressive manner.
2 There is cctv footage of the guests making their complaint to the Night Manager on duty. They also made a further complaint to the Duty Manager the following morning.
3 The Worker was dismissed for gross misconduct as his explanations given at the disciplinary meeting were unsatisfactory.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of both parties in this case.
The Court finds that the incident that occurred in the Hotel on 24 April, 2011 was regrettable and the worker's behaviour, particularly when the night duty manager was dealing with the guests, warranted some disciplinary sanction. However, it did not amount to what could be described as "gross misconduct" justifying dismissal. Accordingly the Court, noting that this worker had five years of competent and reliable service with the hotel takes the view that the dismissal was not warranted on the facts and was unfair in all the circumstances of this case.
The Court recommends that the Company pay the worker the sum of €1,500 compensation in full and final settlement of this dispute.
The Court further recommends that, in order to prevent a reoccurence and to protect vulnerable staff in highly charged situations, Senior Management takes steps to clarify company policy and procedures regarding the management of after-hours vending machine malfunctions and provide appropriate related training to all relevant staff.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
15th February, 2012______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.