LCR10917

Subject:
Dismissal of a worker.

Recommendation:
5. The Court has carefully considered the evidence presented by
the parties and is satisfied that the claimant was not unfairly
treated. The Court therefore recommends that he accept the
Company's decision.

Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Mr Devine

Text of Document__________________________________________________________________

CD86852 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10917
SECTION 20(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 10917

PARTIES: SUPERQUINN LIMITED

and

A WORKER



Subject:

1. Dismissal of a worker.

Background:

2. The worker was employed by the Company as a part-time security
man from 18th March, 1986 subject to a three month probationary
period (this was later extended), in the Blackrock Shopping Centre
for which the Company's Security Department provides security
services. The worker had previously worked in the stores area of
the Company's Finglas Branch on an AnCO training scheme. At the
end of that period the worker expressed a wish to join the Company
and in order to assess his suitability he was then employed as a
part-time security man. Following a number of incidents (details
supplied to the Court) the Company decided that he was unsuitable
for employment and he was dismissed by letter dated 3rd September,
1986 with effect from 12th September, 1986. The termination of
employment was unacceptable to the worker who contends that he was
unfairly dismissed. Following a meeting between the Company and a
Union representative (the worker was not a member of the Union
concerned but had applied for membership at the time of his
dismissal), the worker referred the dispute under Section 20(1) of
the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. The worker agreed to be bound
by the Court's recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute
on 12th December, 1986.

Worker's arguments:

3. (i) The worker is of the opinion that he was the subject
of victimisation and isolation. When he was engaged
by the Company he was informed that he would be given
a wide range of duties, but in the course of his
employment was given only one area to patrol and
worked mainly alone. Because of the nature of the job
any worker involved in security duties is involved in
many incidents and the worker believes that certain
incidents were used to discredit his performance, and
further that he was not involved in some of those
cited against him.

(ii) None of the accusations against him has been proved.
The worker requested references (details supplied to
the Court) from 'tenants' in the Centre, after the
termination of his employment, but at the time of
collection was asked to leave the Centre by the Head
of Security.

(iii) Absences in April and May, 1986, were due to the fact
that he was required to do jury duty and was on sick
leave. He received a good reference for his period of
employment in the Finglas Branch of the Company while
on the AnCO training course and on the recommendation
of the manager of the Finglas Branch was successful in
obtaining the job in the Blackrock Centre.

(iv) A worker on probation is normally automatically
dismissed if considered unsuitable, if he was
unsuitable the probationary period would not have been
extended.

Company's arguments:

4. (a) The Company was concerned by a number of incidents in
which the worker was involved during the period of his
probationary employment, which showed an attitude
which was aggressive and unsuitable to the Company.
The worker's absence due to illness was not held
against him.

(b) The Company treated the worker fairly and reasonably
in informing him of its concerns regarding his
attitude and gave the worker every opportunity to show
his suitability for the position which he held in the
Company, by giving him a further opportunity to
improve his performance to a satisfactory level, which
he failed to do.

(c) After the worker's dismissal from the Company, the
latter accepted representations made on his behalf by
a Union Official but found no reason to change its
decision.

(d) As the dispute was a matter directly between the
Company and the worker, the Company had issued
instructions that the worker should not be allowed
into the Centre to collect references as they were
concerned that the 'tenants' would be upset by the
situation.

RECOMMENDATION:

5. The Court has carefully considered the evidence presented by
the parties and is satisfied that the claimant was not unfairly
treated. The Court therefore recommends that he accept the
Company's decision.
~


Signed on behalf of the Labour Court


14th January, 1987 Nicholas Fitzgerald
U.M./P.W. Deputy Chairman