FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ST EUNANS NURSING & CONVALECENT HOME LTD - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Dismissal
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the Worker's claim that he was unfairly dismissed. The Worker referred this case to the Labour Court on 7th April, 2014, 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 25th September, 2014.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Worker refutes the serious allegations made against him.
2. The Company carried out a flawed investigation into these allegations.
3.The Worked was unfairly dismissed; he did not resign.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Very serious allegations were made against the Worker.
2. These allegations were investigated by the Company.
- 3. The Worker apologised for his behaviour and resigned.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue before the Court concerns a claim by the Claimant that he was unfairly dismissed from his employment as a Care Assistant with the Employer. The Employer disputed the dismissal and contended that the Claimant resigned his position.
The Court was presented with a conflict of evidence and having considered the written and oral submissions of both parties the Court prefers the evidence of the Claimant in this matter.
Having found that the Claimant was dismissed from his employment on 21stFebruary 2014, the Court has considered whether that dismissal meets the standards of natural justice.
The Court is satisfied that the manner of his dismissal fell far short of the standard of fairness that could be expected from a reasonable employer. The Claimant was not informed of the allegations made against him, he was not provided with an opportunity to be represented, he was not provide with witness statements made against him, he was not informed that his employment was in jeopardy and was not provided with an opportunity to mount a defense. The Court is of the view that the decision to dismiss was made in a hasty manner without recourse to the principles of natural justice. Furthermore the Court is satisfied that the fact of his dismissal was never communicated to him despite his request for clarification of the matter when he reported for work in accordance with his roster.
In conclusion the Court finds that the dismissal was contrary to the most basic requirements of procedural fairness and good practice. It is also contrary to the provisions of the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedure (S.I. No. 146 of 2000). That Code of Practice is made pursuant to Section 42 of the Industrial Relations Act 1990 and the Court is required by Section 42(4) of that Act to have regard to its provisions in deciding on any case to which it relates. For all of these reasons the Court finds that the dismissal of the Claimant was unfair.
In all the circumstances of this case the Court recommends that the Claimant should be awarded the maximum compensation and accordingly recommends that the Employer should pay him the sum of €36,000 in full and final settlement of his claim under the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
15th October, 2014______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.