Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87579 Case Number: LCR11412 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: WATERFORD CORPORATION - and - MR. DESMOND BOLGER |
Alleged unfair dismissal of one worker.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, is of the view that the claimant was not unfairly
dismissed. The Court recommends accordingly that he accepts the
Corporation's decision.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Collins Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87579 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11412
Section 20(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11412
PARTIES: WATERFORD CORPORATION
and
A WORKER
Subject:
1. Alleged unfair dismissal of one worker.
Background:
2. In 1986 Waterford Corporation decided to appoint two
additional firemen. The vacancies were advertised in May and
there were 135 applications received of which 115 candidates were
interviewed and 8 were selected for physical aptitude tests. Two
candidates were selected from these. All candidates had been made
aware of the Qualifications and Particulars of Employment which
were set out in written form. These stated, inter alia,
"A person appointed must reside in Waterford City. He/she
will be located at Waterford Fire Station and may be required
to live in accommodation provided at, or near the Fire
Station".
and
"A person appointed will be required to undergo any training
or educational programme assigned to him/her, including
attendance at Courses, abroad if necessary; and also to
attend at night or day release classes as directed. He/she
may also be required to sit for professional examinations.
He/she will be required to undergo an initial training course
of 13 weeks duration".
Concerning the matter of probation the document stated -
"Initial appointment will be for a probationary period of
twelve months. The person appointed will cease to hold the
appointment at the end of the probationary period unless the
Chief Fire Officer certifies that he/she has complied with
the requirements for appointment and is otherwise
satisfactory".
The individual concerned accepted the offer of appointment and
signed a copy of the Qualifications and Particulars of Employment.
He had given a Waterford City address (his mother in law's, which
he had used as a base in his previous position as a temporary
ambulance driver for Ardkeen Hospital, Waterford). He himself
owned a house in Kilmacow, Co. Kilkenny. In September, 1986, he
commenced a 13 week training course in West Yorkshire. He
experienced difficulty with the course in the following weeks.
Following four weeks of training there was a week-end recess. The
trainee returned to Waterford and the Chief Fire Officer in
Waterford Corporation arranged special week-end training for him
particularly in relation to the use of breathing apparatus.
The trainee returned to the course for a further four weeks and
then returned to Waterford for a second week-end recess. In the
meantime he had arranged to sell his house in Kilmacow. During
this second recess (on 21st November, 1986), he was informed by
the Assistant Chief Fire Officer that it had been decided to
withdraw him from the training course and that in consequence of
his inability to complete the course his employment in the Fire
Service would be terminated. A notice of dismissal was issued on
28th November, 1986, to take effect a week later. The worker
considered his dismissal to be unfair. He sought a meeting with
the Personnel Manager who promised a full investigation. He also
contacted his solicitor who wrote to the Corporation requesting
information on the position. In the meantime the worker made
representations to local councillors and T.D.s with regard to his
case. The Corporation however did not discuss the case. In
March, 1987, the worker received a letter, through his solicitor,
from the Personnel Department of the Corporation. This letter
stated, in summary, that it had been made clear that failure to
successfully complete the 13 week training course would render a
candidate ineligible for appointment as an operational Fireman.
This trainee failed to attain the required standard, would not
have achieved that standard by remaining at the Course and was not
eligible for re-entry to the course. The letter further stated
that the trainee had never been requested to change his residence
or place his house for sale. The worker referred the matter of
his dismissal to a Rights Commissioner. On 28th May, 1987, the
Corporation indicated that it was not agreeable to a Rights
Commissioner's investigation. The worker, on 24th June, 1987,
referred the matter to the Labour Court under Section 20(i) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court investigated the matter
on 18th August, 1987, in Waterford. Prior to the hearing the
worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
Worker's arguments:
3. (i) The worker considers that he has been unfairly
dismissed from his employment by the Corporation. He
was apprehensive about undertaking the course and
sought details of the standards required. He was
assured that he would have no trouble achieving that
standard due to the vigorous selection process. No
details were given as to what this standard would be.
This was the first occasion on which trainee firemen
had been sent on this course.
(ii) On commencement of the course the worker discovered
that the vast majority of those taking the course had
previous experience of fire fighting. Many were ex
British Army personnel. The course was of a very
rigorous nature and the worker experienced difficulty
with the theoretical aspects. He had been out of
school for a number of years, he had difficulty in
understanding the accents and most importantly, he had
no practical knowledge of fire fighting to which he
could relate the theory.
(iii) The worker made his difficulties known to the course
authorities and requested extra tuition. He did
receive this, with about twenty others, but did not
find it very helpful. The worker feels that, had he
been given some practical knowledge of fire fighting
before he was sent on the course, he would have
completed it successfully.
(iv) During the first week-end break the worker felt that,
with the help of tuition in Waterford, he had mastered
the technique of using breathing apparatus. On return
to West Yorkshire he was successful in a practical,
oral and written examination in breathing apparatus.
(v) In the four weeks following this week-end break the
worker felt that he was beginning to come to grips
with the techniques. He was commended for his driving
technique and his use of initiative in a Road Traffic
Accident exercise. His dismissal, on return to
Waterford for his second week-end break, came as a
complete surprise to him.
(vi) Waterford Fire Station was fully aware that the worker
was selling his house in Kilkenny in order to comply
with the conditions of employment.
(vii) The worker has not been able to get any proper
information as to why he was not allowed to complete
the course and has not been given the opportunity to
present his case.
Corporation's arguments:
4. (a) The worker was made fully aware, prior to taking up
his appointment, that he would be required to pass
successfully through the 13 week training course in
England. It was mentioned to him by the Assistant
Chief Fire Officer in June, 1986, again at his
interview in July, 1986, particularly since he was
already in employment and again by the Chief Fire
Officer, following the offer of appointment. On 24th
September, 1986, the worker was appointed by Manager's
Order. This Order stated that it was an indispensable
condition of his appointment that he complete and pass
successfully through the 13 week training course.
(b) During the worker's first period at West Yorkshire
Training School, the Chief Fire Officer received a
number of telephone messages from the School stating
that his progress at the course was poor. The trainee
was advised by the Training Staff at the School of
this assessment of his performance. At the end of the
first four weeks, the indications were that serious
consideration should be given to withdrawing him from
the course. However, the Chief Fire Officer's hopeful
expectation was that if the trainee surmounted his
initial unsettlement, his performance would
correspondingly improve. He arranged intensive
training at the Waterford City Fire Station over that
week-end.
(c) Following the trainee's resumption of the course, the
Chief Fire Officer was again advised on a weekly basis
that there was no significant improvement in his
performance, despite additional training provided for
him at the School. It appeared that the trainee would
not achieve the required standard. The trainee was
simultaneously being made aware of the assessment
being made by the School staff on his performance. On
1st November, 1986, the Course Director telephoned to
the Assistant Chief Fire Officer advising that the
trainee should not be returned to the Course after his
second recess home. The reasons given for that advice
were (i) that this individual would not achieve the
required standard at the Centre, rather that his
difficulties would increase as the Course progressed;
and (ii) that his poor rate of progress was adversely
affecting the general performance of the group in
training. This advice was confirmed and amplified in
letter dated 21st November, 1986, from the Chief Fire
Officer of West Yorkshire Fire Service (copy supplied
to the Court).
(d) The Chief Fire Officer informed the worker on 21st
November, 1986, of the decision to withdraw him from
the recruit training course and that in consequence of
his inability to complete the course, his employment
in the Fire Service would have to be terminated.
Confirmation of this decision was conveyed to him in
Personnel Officer's letter dated 28th November, 1986,
(copy supplied to the Court) to take effect a week
later.
(e) The final report on the outcome of the worker's
training experience was contained in a letter dated
10th December, 1986, (copy supplied) from the Chief
Fire Officer of West Yorkshire Fire Service, denying
any prospect of the worker resuming as a firefighter.
(f) The Corporation at no time requested or instructed the
worker to sell his house in Kilmacow.
(g) The Corporation regrets that the worker did not
succeed in his ambition to become an operational
fire-fighter and did all in its power to encourage and
assist him in that direction. The termination of his
employment was a consequence only of the course of
events as outlined above and was unavoidable. It has
no implications with regard to his character.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, is of the view that the claimant was not unfairly
dismissed. The Court recommends accordingly that he accepts the
Corporation's decision.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
11th September, 1987 Nicholas Fitzgerald
A.K./P.W. Deputy Chairman