Labour Court Database
__________________________________________________________________________________
File Number: CD92474
Case Number: AD9348
Section / Act: S13(9)
Parties: MANLEY CONSTRUCTION LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
|
Subject:
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. C.W. 118/92 concerning the alleged dismissal of a worker.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
is of the view that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation is
not unreasonable in the circumstances and should be upheld.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92474 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD4893
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: MANLEY CONSTRUCTION LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FEDERATION)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. C.W. 118/92 concerning the alleged dismissal of
a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company on
the 10th January, 1992. His job involved attending bricklayers,
supplying bricks and mortar to them and cleaning up the scaffold
area when they were finished. The worker was dismissed on 5th
February, 1992. The Union claimed that he was unfairly dismissed
and referred the issue to a Rights Commissioner for investigation
and recommendation. On the 31st July the Rights Commissioner
issued his recommendation as follows:
"I recommend that the worker and the Union accept that the
dismissal was fair".
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation).
On the 6th August, 1992 the Union appealed the recommendation to
the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on the 10th June, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Whilst involved in cleaning the scaffold the worker
mistakenly tilted over one of the boards allowing debris to
fall accidentally through the scaffold. He was verbally
abused in a rude manner by the site manager and was not given
a chance to defend himself. He was subsequently arbitrarily
dismissed in an unfair and unjust manner. The worker's error
warranted a warning or suspension, not instant dismissal.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker concerned displayed gross carelessness in
performing his duties. The worker was specifically warned on
30th January, 1992, and 3rd February, 1992. On the 5th
February, 1992, he again displayed gross carelessness when
bricks dropped through the scaffold onto the public footpath.
The worker's attitude to safety was totally unacceptable and
the Company, having previously warned the worker, had no
alternative but to dismiss him. It was not necessary to
replace the worker as the contract was nearing completion.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
is of the view that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation is
not unreasonable in the circumstances and should be upheld.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_________________
25th June, 1993. Deputy Chairman.
T.O'D./J.C.