WHEN graffiti was discovered on the gent's toilet door at Thermo King Dublin, Blanchardstown, in September 1995, it caused quite a furore.
As no member of staff admitted responsibility an immediate investigation was carried out. This included employing a handwriting expert.
Fifty seven samples of hand writing were examined and the expert concluded that a specific member of staff "probably wrote the questioned handwriting on the toilet door". The worker concerned has consistently stated his innocence and has requested a written apology and a payment of compensation from the company.
The union and the worker brought the case to a Rights Commissioner and later to the Labour Court.
The Rights Commissioner's investigation found that no disciplinary action was taken by the company and he did not consider that compensation was merited as the worker had not suffered any loss and he did not consider an apology was appropriate. He recommended that the union and the worker accept that the "clearance" of his file settled the dispute.
The union then appealed to the Labour Court, explaining that the man had been with the company for seven years and had a good record.
The Labour Court, in its findings issued yesterday, upheld the Rights Commissioners recommendation and rejected the appeal.
The union claimed: "Before any handwriting samples were analysed it was general knowledge throughout the factory that the worker was a suspect. His offer to undergo a writing test was not taken up by the company. The company should acknowledge that the worker was not in any way responsible for writing the graffiti, and an apology and an appropriate amount of compensation should be forthcoming."
The company, in its submission to the court, said no disciplinary action was taken against the worker, nor were any warnings issued to him.
"The company checked the names of staff who worked the shift in question. The handwriting expert also analysed 57 samples from employee's original application forms. On this basis the company believes that the worker concerned is responsible for the graffiti. An apology is, therefore, unwarranted.
"If the worker's name was circulated by unauthorised personnel on company property it could be argued that the employees concerned could have been reprimanded. In recognition of this the company is prepared to pay an amount of £500 to the St Vincent de Paul Society or to another agreed charity."