Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

 A Print Worker

A Document Company

Representatives

Nicola Coleman of SIPTU

Andrea Montanelli of Peninsula

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00000928

09/12/2022

The Dispute concerns the alleged Unfair Dismissal of a Print Worker by a Document Company.

The Employment began on the 8th of November 2021 and ended on the 21st October 2022.

The rate of pay was stated to be €760 per 39-hour week.

Oral testimony supported by a detailed Written Submission was provided by the Worker. Ms Coleman of SIPTU was the chief spokesperson.

The Worker was a very long established (40 years +) and experienced Printer.

He had taken the job with the Employer with reservations as to the manning levels of the large printing machine he was employed on. Normally it was a three-man machine, but he was expected to operate it by himself.

On the 13th September 2022 he sustained a back injury while working on the machine. The Employer provided a hoist for the machine and installed CCTV on the working area. The Worker continued on the machine but objected to being monitored by the CCTV.

In the middle of October 2022 staff including the Worker and the General Manager attended an in-house manual handling course. During the course the Worker expressed publicly his safety reservations regarding his machine. On the 20th October he received a letter from the General Manager terminating his employment. The justification grounds stated were that the Worker

“had not demonstrated the skills and ability to perform his role”

Ms Coleman for the Worker stated that this statement was patently absurd and a complete nonsense where the Employee was a highly skilled Printer of long service and experience of the machine involved.

It was a retaliatory step against the Worker for his Safety Complaints and publicly expressed reservations at the Training Course. No employment procedure of any description was followed.

SI 146 of 2000 – Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures might as well have not existed. Ms Coleman cited extensive Labour Court precedents in support of her arguments – LCR 17635, LCR 22587 and Adj-27394 that the Dismissal was grossly Unfair.

The Employer did not attend the Hearing or offer any mitigating evidence. Ms. Montanelli of Peninsula Business Services attended in a “Watching Brief” role for the Employer. She took no part in the proceeedings.

In considering this case the Adjudicator could only rely on the evidence, both the written submission and by Oral testimony, provided by the Worker.

The Worker presented as a competent experienced Printer/Machine Operator supported by an experienced SIPTU Official. Ms Coleman is not known for taking “No Hope” cases to the WRC.

On the balance of probabilities, the Worker version of events has to be accepted particularly when no Employer submissions were made.

The Labour Court has stated on many occasions that Natural Justice and Fair Procedures apply even if the Worker has less than 12 months employment service. The precedent cases cited by the Worker make this abundantly clear. LCR 17635, LCR 22587 and Adj-27394.

SI 146 of 2000 – Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures was basically ignored.

Accordingly, a Recommendation has to be in the Worker’s favour.

Unfair Dismissal, No Procedures