Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87438 Case Number: LCR11323 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: J.A.HICKEY LTD. - and - MISS MARIA RUTH |
Dispute concerning alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is of the view that the Company acted in accordance
with the Union agreement and accordingly does not find in favour
of the claimant.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87438 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11323
SECTION 20(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11323
PARTIES: J. A. HICKEY LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company on
the 12th February, 1987, and she was dismissed on the 26th March,
1987. She was employed as a machinist and was on a six month
trial period. During her period of employment she was approached
by her supervisor on a number of occasions and informed that her
work performance was sub-standard. On the week before she was
dismissed the supervisor informed her that she had a week within
which to improve her work performance. At the end of the week the
Management considered that her work was still sub-standard and she
was dismissed from her employment. The worker referred her case
to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969 for investigation and recommendation and
agreed to accept the recommendation of the Court. A Labour Court
hearing was held on 9th July, 1987.
Worker's arguments:
3. (a) The worker is not an experienced machinist but an
overlocker. She was not given adequate time to meet
the Company's targets.
(b) Given time, her work performance would have improved.
Indeed, considering she was not an experienced
machinist her work output was quite good. (Details
supplied to the Court).
(c) The worker considers that management treated her in a
disgraceful way when they dismissed her. She also
considers that her work performance did not warrant
dismissal and is asking the Court to recommend that the
Company re-employ her.
Company's arguments:
4. (i) The worker was dismissed in accordance with clause 11
of the Company/Union Agreement which forms an
essential part of each new worker's contract of
employment. This clause sets out the Company's right
to dismiss a worker while on probation if the worker
is found to be unsuitable by management.
(ii) The Company went beyond the strictures of the clause
by warning the worker on a number of occasions
regarding her work performance. The Union was also
informed of the action the Company was taken and they
were satisfied that the proper procedures were
observed. This is reflected in the fact that the
worker is not represented by her Union at this
hearing. Any assessment of the worker was taken
against the background of the Company's experience and
knowledge of the length of time it takes to train an
individual and furthermore, the maintenance of the
Company's high standard of quality which has been the
corner stone of its success to date.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court is of the view that the Company acted in accordance
with the Union agreement and accordingly does not find in favour
of the claimant.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Evelyn Owens
__14th___August,__1987. ___________________
M. D. / M. F. Deputy Chairman