Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87502 Case Number: LCR11383 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: BURKE BROS SON & CO. LTD - and - ITGWU |
Alleged unfair dismissal of one worker.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is of the view that the decision to dismiss the
claimant was harsh but that the Company was within its rights as
he was still within his probationary period.
In the circumstances the Court recommends that the Company offer
to re-employ him when the next suitable vacancy arises with, of
course, an appropriate probationary period to apply.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87502 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11383
Section 20(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 11383
Parties: BURKE BROTHERS, SON AND COMPANY LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Alleged unfair dismissal of one worker.
Background:
2. The Company operates a wholesale electrical and hardware
business and employs approximately thirty people. The worker
concerned first came to the Company for a six month period as an
AnCO trainee from mid April to mid October, 1986. Having
completed the course he was then employed by the Company, working
in the stores area. There was to be an initial probationary
period of six months. At this time the workers in the Company
were not members of any Union. In March, 1987 discussions took
place between a group of workers and an official of the Irish
Transport and General Workers' Union. Subsequently, seven
workers, including the worker concerned became members of the
Union. Management was informed of this on 9th April, 1987. On
10th April, 1987 the worker concerned was dismissed. In meetings
with management the Union contended that the worker had been
unfairly dismissed because of his Union membership. Management
denied this, stating that he had been found to be unsuitable
during his probationary period and cited various incidents in
support of this contention. No agreement was reached. On 5th
May, 1987, the Union referred the matter to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. The Company declined an invitation
to attend a conciliation conference. On 18th June, 1987 the Union
referred the matter to a full hearing of the Labour Court under
Section 20(i) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The hearing
took place on 10th August, 1987. Prior to the hearing the Union
agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) There was confusion amongst the employees regarding the
length of the probationary period. The Union and this
worker understood that the probationary period was 3
months rather than 6 months.
(ii) The worker came to the Company as an AnCo trainee.
Management had ample opportunity to observe his
behaviour. Yet he was offered a job having completed
the AnCO course and worked for a further six months
before being dismissed.
(iii) The Company has stated that it was dissatisfied with
the worker for various reasons. It was alleged that he
had been smoking in the stores, that he had displayed a
bad attitude towards customers and that he had driven
customers' cars which he was not allowed to do. On one
occasion he had damaged a customer's car. In response
to this, the Union points out that the incident
concerning the damage to a car had occurred some months
back and should not now be brought up again. There
were no signs displayed, during the period of the
worker's employment, indicating that smoking was not
permitted. In any case, he took care not to smoke in
the vicinity of any flammable materials. With regard
to driving customers' cars, this was done regularly by
the staff with the permission of the car owners in
order to facilitate the loading of goods in the stores
area.
(iv) The worker received no verbal or written warning prior
to his dismissal.
(v) The Union considers that the worker's dismissal
occurred because of his Union membership and was
intended to have a salutary effect on the Union members
in the Company. The Union has had no success in its
attempts to discuss the matters of wages and conditions
with the Company.
(vi) The Union considers that the worker was unfairly
dismissed, that he should be reinstated without delay
and that he should be compensated for loss of pay from
April last.
Company's argument:
4. (a) Following completion of an AnCO course the worker was
employed on a six months' probationary period, as is
normal practice in the Company. During the first two
months of his employment the Company was satisfied with
his performance.
(b) From February, 1987 to April 1987 a number of incidents
occurred which gave rise to dissatisfaction with the
worker's performance. These related to smoking,
driving customers' cars (on one occasion causing #700
damage), mounting trucks, driving a forklift truck when
not authorised to do so and a bad attitude towards
customers. (A detailed list of these incidents was
supplied to the Court).
(c) The worker was instructed on a number of occasions not
to smoke in the stores and not to drive customers'
cars. He was also told not to mount customer's trucks.
(d) In reviewing the worker's probationary period,
management, having considered his performance, decided
that the worker should not be made permanent. It was
felt that there were sufficient reasons for terminating
his employment since he had failed to meet the
Company's standards, having received numerous warnings.
Management considers that it has the sole right to
determine suitability in the course of a probationary
period.
(e) The worker's dismissal had no connection with his Union
membership.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court is of the view that the decision to dismiss the
claimant was harsh but that the Company was within its rights as
he was still within his probationary period.
In the circumstances the Court recommends that the Company offer
to re-employ him when the next suitable vacancy arises with, of
course, an appropriate probationary period to apply.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
31st August, 1987 Nicholas Fitzgerald
A.K./U. Deputy Chairman