ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00016448
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Airport Security | Specialised Security provider |
Complaints:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00019864-001 | 19/06/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00019864-002 | 19/06/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00019864-003 | 19/06/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00019864-004 | 19/06/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 45A of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946 | CA-00019864-005 | 19/06/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00019864-006 | 19/06/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | CA-00019864-007 | 19/06/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 14 of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act, 2003 | CA-00019864-008 | 19/06/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 14 of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act, 2003 | CA-00019864-009 | 19/06/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 14 of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act, 2003 | CA-00019864-010 | 19/06/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 14 of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act, 2003 | CA-00019864-011 | 19/06/2018 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 30/10/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 8 (1)(a) of the Unfair Dismissals Act of 1977 (as substituted) and where a claim for redress under the Unfair Dismissals legislation is being made the claim is referred to the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission who in turn refers any such claim to an Adjudication Officer, so appointed, for the purpose of having the said claim heard in the manner prescribed in Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and in particular the said Adjudication Officer is obliged to make all relevant inquiries into the complaint. The Adjudication Officer will additionally and where appropriate hear all relevant oral evidence of the parties and their witnesses and will take into account any and all documentary or other evidence which may be tendered in the course of the hearing.
In particular, and in circumstances where the Complainant herein has referred a complaint of having been unfairly dismissed form her place of employment wherein she had worked for in excess of one year and where the Workplace Relations Complaint Form (dated the 24th of August 2016) issued within six months of her dismissal, I am satisfied that I have jurisdiction to hear the within matter
In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and following the presentation by an employee of a complaint of a contravention by an employer of an Act contained in Schedule 5 of the Workplace Relations Act of 2015 or such other Act as might be referred to in the 2015 Act, made to the Director General and following a referral by the said Director General of this matter to the Adjudication services, I can confirm that I have fulfilled my obligation to make all relevant inquiries into the complaint or dispute. I have additionally and where appropriate heard the oral evidence of the parties and their witnesses and have taken account of the evidence tendered in the course of the hearing as well as any written submissions disclosed in advance of the hearing.
The Complainant herein has referred a matter for dispute resolution under Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 and the referral has been made within six months of the initial circumstances of the relevant dispute/contravention.
Background:
The Complainant had been engaged by the Respondent security company to work at Dublin Airport. In particular the Complainant was part of a highly skilled and specialised team of security officers delivering security and safety to passengers, crew and aircraft in an industry which has to take security issues very seriously. The Complainant was summarily dismissed following a breach of security which the Respondent believed was so fundamental as to render the Complainant’s continued engagement as impossible. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant accepts a breach of security has occurred. It is accepted by both parties that there was no malice intended and that the Complainant, in assisting a flight attendant who was previously unknown to him, had acted without thought and without regard to the correct procedures. The Complainant states that the sanction imposed was too severe in all the circumstances having regard to his unblemished record and his innocent motive of just wanting to help |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent outlined the implementation of its disciplinary processes in circumstances where an employee has fallen short of a fundamental security standard it submits it is reasonable to expect of it’s employees. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I have carefully considered the evidence adduced. On 12th of May 2018, the Complainant was hurrying to his place of work at the ramp of a transatlantic flight. The Complainant had just come through ASU and met a flight attendant from an American Airline that had become detached from her colleagues and was unsure of the way to go to get to her flight. The Complainant checked the flight attendant’s identification and suggested she follow him to the departure area. The Complainant and his companion took a route through the Airport that seemed to primarily have been on the Arrivals level and eventually came out at the departures lounge at which point they separated. It is agreed that the route taken meant that the flight attendant did not go through the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) area which is a United States Government sanctioned pre-clearance operation for the inspection of all personnel boarding flights bound for the USA. As it happens the Flight Attendants subsequent arrival and signing in at the gate of the flight she was working from immediately alerted the Customs and Border Protection personnel that she had gotten past them. The Flight Attendant was sent back to go through pre-clearance and the breach of security was taken up with the Respondent company which has security Contract for CBP within the Airport. I have to accept that there was in breach in the security policy. I fully accept the Complainant’s evidence that he was simply assisting the lost Flight Attendant make her way back to her place of work. I also have to accept – and the Complainant has stated it – that the Complainant quite simply did not think to bring the Complainant through the CBP process. The Complainant accepts that any person intending to fly on a USA bound flight must go through the CBP process. It formed part of the Complainant’s training. It is an unfortunate fact that the Complainant forgot this part of his training and in this memory lapse, he created a breach in security that his Employer and their client and the Airport authorities had to take very seriously. I am satisfied that the Complainant’s mistake was thoroughly investigated by JP and that the Employer was obliged to commence a Disciplinary process. There is no doubt that the decision maker AL took on board the innocent nature of the Complainant’s actions but that in weighing up his options AL took the view that the breach and the attendant lack of judgement made it impossible to continue to employ the Complainant. In the circumstances the Complainant was summarily dismissed and this decision was affirmed on Appeal. On balance I find that the decision to dismiss is a fair one. The employment function is to render the Airport and the flights in and out of the Airport secure and safe for all users. The mistake made by the Complainant went to the very core of what is unacceptable in ensuring that security. The Complainant has in addition brought many claims under different legislative headings. The Complainant’s evidence did not demonstrate any breach of the Organisation of Working Time Act as regards annual Leave or start and finish times or additional hours. The Complainant’s rosters were well known to him. In addition, the Complainant did not show he lacked his Statement of Terms and Conditions of employment nor has the Complainant worked long enough in this workplace to have triggered the protections contained in the Protection of Employees (Fixed Term Work) Act. I invited the Respondent to make available the last payslip which the Complainant was due to receive so as to allow him understand the basis for his last payment and to ensure that he has been paid whatever Holiday pay was due and owing to him. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 - CA-00019864-001. I find the Complaint herein to be not well founded. Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 - CA-00019864-002. I find the Complaint herein to be not well founded. Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 - CA-00019864-003. I find the Complaint herein to be not well founded. Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 - CA-00019864-004. I find the Complaint herein to be not well founded as the Complainant had a statement of his terms and conditions of employment. Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 45A of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946 - CA-00019864-005. I find the Complaint herein to be not well founded. Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 - CA-00019864-006. I find that the decision to terminate the Complainant’s employment was fair and reasonable in all the circumstances and arose out of the Complainant’s own conduct.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 - CA-00019864-007. The Respondent declined to have this matter heard. Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 14 of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act, 2003 - CA-00019864-008. I find the Complaint herein to be not well founded. Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 14 of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act, 2003 - CA-00019864-009. I find the Complaint herein to be not well founded. Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 14 of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act, 2003 - CA-00019864-010. I find the Complaint herein to be not well founded. Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 14 of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act, 2003 - CA-00019864-011 . I find the Complaint herein to be not well founded |
Dated: 17/12/18
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Key Words:
|