Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88863 Case Number: LCR12175 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: KME INTERNATIONAL LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Claim for unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
5. As this employee completed his apprenticeship, the Company had
no obligation to continue him in employment. The Court does not,
therefore, recommend concession of the claim.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Heffernan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88863 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12175
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: KME INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. KME International Limited is a small company engaged in
precision engineering. It currently employs sixteen people. In
1985 the Company employed the worker here concerned as a toolmaker
apprentice. On completion of his apprenticeship on 5th September,
1985, the Company decided not to offer the worker a permanent
position. However, three other apprentices who completed their
apprenticeships in September, 1988 were offered permanent
positions. The Worker objected to being dismissed without reason
from the Company. He referred his case to the Labour Court under
Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and undertook
to be bound by the Recommendation of the Court. A Court
investigation into the matter took place on 2nd December, 1988.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker received no reasons for his dismissal except
that there was no room for him. Since he was let go the
Company has employed an apprentice turner and a qualified
turner.
2. The worker was the first of four apprentices to be
employed and the only one to be dismissed.
3. Three weeks prior to receiving his notice the worker and
the other apprentices were told that they would be employed by
the Company at the end of their apprenticeship. Despite this
the worker was dismissed.
4. The attendance record of the other apprentices at day
release courses was not much better than that of the Worker
concerned. His work in the Company was praised and he was
told he was a fast learner.
3. 5. The taking of extra courses was not actively encouraged.
The training given by the Company was not adequate for the
apprenticeship, which is reflected in the fact that when the
Worker found employment he had to do some of his
apprenticeship again as it was felt his training had not been
up to standard.
6. While the worker did receive a warning in October, 1987
for absences, his record in the following 6 months was without
fault.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was employed as an apprentice. On completion
of his apprenticeship the Company decided not to offer him a
permanent position. The Company was under no obligation to
offer him further employment.
2. The worker's attendance record at the day release course
and his sick leave record were the worst of the four
apprentices (details supplied at the Court's request).
3. The worker received numerous warnings concerning his
attendance at college, his attendance at work and the quality
of his work. Of all the people currently employed by the
Company, this worker was the only one to have verbal or
written warnings noted on his personnel file.
4. AnCO approved the Company as being suitable to employ
four toolmaker apprentices. When doubts were raised by the
apprentices concerning their training the Company contacted
the AnCO Apprentice Training Advisor and received his
assurance that at the end of their four years the apprentices
would receive their AnCO certificates of completion of
apprenticeship.
5. The worker concerned did not take any extra courses to
assist him to qualify as a toolmaker - two of the other
apprentices did. The Company encouraged the apprentices to
take extra courses and course costs and exam fees were
refunded when exams were passed.
6. The apprentices were told shortly before their time was
up that management were generally happy with their performance
but they were also told that they would have to be spoken to
individually.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. As this employee completed his apprenticeship, the Company had
no obligation to continue him in employment. The Court does not,
therefore, recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
21st December, 1988 ---------------
R.B./U.S. Chairman