FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : QUEALLY PIG SLAUGHTERING LIMITED T/A DAWN PORK & BACON - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Worker was employed by the Company from 29th August 2011 until his dismissal on 25th May 2012 as a General Operative. On a number of occasions he needed to absent himself from work due to pressing family commitments. At all times he made contact with his employer either by phone or directly and was under the false impression that he was excused the infringement by Management.
On the 16th August, 2012 the Union referred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. IBEC issued a written statement to the Court dated 3rd October, 2012 outlining the Company's position regarding this case and indicated that it would not be in attendance at the hearing. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 2nd May, 2013
The Union agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. At no point was the Claimant made aware that his actions could have a detrimental effect on his career with the Company.
2. The Claimant was not given notice by Management that his actions were considered to be of such a grave nature that his job could be in jeopardy.
3. At the disciplinary hearing on the 25th May, 2012 the Claimant was not given the opportunity to be represented.
RECOMMENDATION:
The case before the Court was brought under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 and concerns a claim of unfair dismissal.
The Employer did not attend the hearing. The Court regards it as regrettable that the Employer was not present to avail of the opportunity to explain its version of the events giving rise to the claim.
Having considered the Claimant’s submission the Court is satisfied that the Claimant was under the misapprehension that his absenteeism, albeit very substantial, was not an issue for his employers due to his extenuating circumstances. In any event the Court takes the view that an employer is expected to observe reasonable disciplinary procedures. The Claimant was entitled to know that his employment was in jeopardy and he was entitled to be represented at a disciplinary hearing on 25thMay 2012 where the decision was taken to terminate his employment.
Based on the uncontested evidence of the Claimant, the Court is of the view that the Claimant was not afforded fair procedures in accordance with the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures S.I. No. 146 of 2000 and therefore the dismissal procedures in this case were flawed. In all the circumstances, the Court recommends that he should be paid compensation in the sum of €5,000 to be accepted in full and final settlement of the claim against his Employer.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
14th June, 2013______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.