Labour Court Database
__________________________________________________________________________________
File Number: CD93290
Case Number: LCR14158
Section / Act: S20(1)
Parties: AN POST - and - COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS UNION
|
Subject:
Alleged unfair dismissal of two workers.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties and the oral
evidence presented at the hearing, the Court is of the view that
the decision of management to dismiss the claimants was unsafe.
While there was clearly a dispute about money lent/borrowed, there
was strong conflict of evidence regarding the actual incidents.
The Court does not find the evidence against the claimants
sufficiently compelling to justify their dismissal. Accorindgly,
in all the circumstances the Court recommends that they be paid to
the conclusion of their contracts i.e. to 19th April, 1993 in full
and final settlement of their claim.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93290 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14158
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: AN POST
and
COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged unfair dismissal of two workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. The two workers concerned commenced employment with the
Company as temporary postmen on the 21st September, 1992. Their
contracts were due to expire on the 19th April, 1993. Following a
complaint by another temporary postman on the 5th February, 1993
that he was allegedly assaulted by one worker and verbally
threatened by the other, both workers were suspended from duty on
the 9th February, 1993. They denied being involved in the alleged
incidents. Following an investigation by the Company the two
workers were dismissed with effect from 19th February, 1993. The
Union claimed that the dismissals were unfair and referred the
dispute to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. The Union agreed to be bound by the Court's
recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the 27th May, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The complaints against the two workers concerned cannot
be sustained. There were no witnesses to the alleged assault
and threat. It is against the principle of natural justice to
dismiss the two workers and remove their means of livelihood.
2. The Company did not adhere to agreed procedures nor did
it properly investigate the complaints made on the basis of
unsubstantiated allegations. Neither worker was afforded an
opportunity to state his case. The Company's 'interview' of
the workers on the 9th February was little more than a
peremptory meeting to advise them of the charges against them.
3. Local supervisors and management failed in their
responsibilities to carry out serious and detailed
investigation of the incidents prior to transferring the cases
to personnel division at Company headquarters. Based on an
incomplete investigation, the Company decided to dismiss the
two workers on the basis of insufficient evidence.
4. The two workers concerned should be reinstated on the
same terms as their colleagues and any losses incurred fully
reimbursed. If for some reason they cannot be re-engaged they
should be awarded compensation for loss of earnings from the
date of dismissal to 1st July, 1993 or later if the terms of
contract of similar staff is extended beyond that date. The
unwarranted stain that the allegations have placed on their
characters must be removed and any character references
requested by the workers from the Company should carry no
reference to these unproven incidents
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Following the report to his immediate superior of the
assault the worker was taken to hospital and examined; he had
a visible mark on his jaw. The worker was certified as being
fit to resume duty. He confirmed his allegation in writing on
8th February. On the 9th February, in a further written
report, the worker complained that he had been approached by
the other temporary postman concerned and verbally threatened.
Both workers were interviewed by Management on 9th February.
The were advised of the charges made against them, provided
with the time and place and the name of the worker making the
complaint and also the time and date of the incidents. They
were suspended pending an investigation.
2. The Company conducted a thorough investigation of the
incidents and having satisfied itself that the situation was
as reported, dismissed both officers effective from 19th
February, 1993. Following intervention from Union
Headquarters, Management agreed to review both cases. Both
workers were kept on the pay-roll until 12th March, 1993.
Having again examined in detail the points put forward by the
Union, the Company's opinion was confirmed that there was no
doubt as to the veracity of the report made by the worker
(allegedly assaulted and threatened) against both temporary
postmen. The Company had no option but to sustain the
dismissals.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties and the oral
evidence presented at the hearing, the Court is of the view that
the decision of management to dismiss the claimants was unsafe.
While there was clearly a dispute about money lent/borrowed, there
was strong conflict of evidence regarding the actual incidents.
The Court does not find the evidence against the claimants
sufficiently compelling to justify their dismissal. Accorindgly,
in all the circumstances the Court recommends that they be paid to
the conclusion of their contracts i.e. to 19th April, 1993 in full
and final settlement of their claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
27th July, 1993 ----------------
T O'D/U.S. Chairman
NOTE:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.