FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : A.I.B BANK - AND - MARTIN CONAGHAN (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BANK OFFICIALS ASSOCIATION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Dismissal
BACKGROUND:
2. The case concerns a claim by a Worker that his dismissal was unfair.
The employer's position is that the Worker was dismissed due to his failure to disclose mandatory details in relation to his financial affairs as part of the banks pre-employment process which was discovered at a later stage.
On the 1st October 2012, the Worker referred the dispute 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 the 23rd January, 2013.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Worker was asked to attend a meeting on the 18thJune 2012. He was not informed in advance of the nature of the meeting, or afforded the opportunity to be represented at the meeting.
2. Following a ten minute meeting, the Worker was told of the serious nature of the situation, but the bank failed to allow him sufficient time to explain or afforded him the opportunity to be represented at the following meeting.
3. The meeting resumed and the Worker was told his contract was being terminated. He was not offered any course of appeal.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Worker was interviewed for a position in the bank on the 29th March 2012. The bank wrote to the Worker asking him to fill in and return a pre-employment declaration and a probity questionnaire.
2. The Worker completed the probity questionnaire which the bank accepted in good faith.
3. In June 2012, the bank discovered the Worker had arrears owing to another bank and called the Worker to a meeting to explain why he had not declared this in the probity questionnaire. Following a number of meetings the Worker was dismissed.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of both parties to this dispute.
The Court finds that the worker concerned was, contrary to the provisions of S.I. No 146/2000, denied access to fair procedures by the Bank in this case. Accordingly the decision to dismiss him from his employment is without merit and cannot be upheld by this Court.
The Court recommends that the Bank pay the worker concerned compensation in the sum of €12,500 arising from the failure of the Bank to comply with the provisions of Statutory Instrument No 146/2000.
The Court further recommends that the Bank, in consultation with the relevant trade union, review its policies and procedures to bring them into line with the provisions of S.I. No 146/2000.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
CR______________________
30th January, 2013Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.