FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DORUS LUIMNI COMPANY LIMITED BY GUARANTEE - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Geraghty Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Ms Treacy |
1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer Recommendation No. ADJ-00014450.
BACKGROUND:
2. This matter was referred to an Adjudication Officer for investigation and Recommendation. On 30 October 2018 Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:-
- “I do not find that the Complainant has established any causal link between the alleged protected act and the alleged penalisation. His claim is, therefore, not well founded and is therefore, dismissed”.
The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 10 December 2018 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
A Labour Court hearing took place on 21 March 2019.
DECISION:
The Worker commenced employment with the Organisation in October 2017 and was dismissed in March 2018 following a disciplinary process and an appeal process. The Worker had less than 12 months’ service, so was not covered by the terms of the Unfair Dismissals Acts. He took a case under the Industrial Relations Act to the Workplace Relations Commission, (WRC). The Adjudication Officer found that the issues that gave rise to the dismissal arose between the Chief Executive and the Worker. However, despite this, the Chief Executive conducted the disciplinary hearing, there was no investigative process and the Chief Executive had taken the decision to dismiss. Therefore, it was found that the dismissal process was flawed. The Adjudicator found that the Worker had contributed to his dismissal and recommended a ‘once off’ ex-gratia payment in respect of the procedural unfairness of €1,000.
The Worker appealed the quantum awarded.
The Organisation did not attend the Court proceedings.
Union arguments
In the uncontested hearing, the Union rejected all of the allegations made against the Worker. They highlighted the procedural unfairness of a dismissal process that arose from accusations by the Chief Executive, who then conducted a disciplinary hearing and decided on dismissal, contrary to the principles of natural justice and fair procedures. They drew attention to the fact that these actions breached the Code of Practice, S.I. 146 of 2000.
They stated that the appeal process was equally flawed and that the appeal sub committee had stated, incorrectly, that, as the worker was on probation, the Statutory Instrument did not apply to him.
The Union asked the Court to up-hold the finding that the dismissal was unfair and to increase the quantum awarded.
Organisation’s position
The Organisation did not attend. A letter was received by the Court in which it was stated that the Chief Executive concerned no longer worked for them and would be out of the country at the time of the hearing. The letter went on to say;
‘We believe that we behaved in a reasonable and appropriate manner at all stages in the process that led to X’s dismissal. We encourage the Labour Court to give consideration to the submission we made to the WRC. We feel that all the facts relating to the case are already clearly outlined in that submission’
Recommendation
It is very disappointing, in the view of the Court, that an Organisation which receives significant State funding would show such blithe disregard for the institutions of the State. This contempt extends to the point that, apparently, the Organisation has not bothered to make itself aware of the fact that the Court is a body entirely separate to the WRC and does not have and, as the appellate body in respect of decisions from the WRC, should not have, access to any documentation submitted to that body.
With regard to the appeal, the Court does not see any reason to alter or vary the terms of the Adjudication Officer’s recommendation, which is up-held.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom Geraghty
LS______________________
08 April 2019Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Louise Shally, Court Secretary.