Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87903 Case Number: LCR11728 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: NEW-CLEAN SERVICES LIMITED - and - IRISH WOMEN WORKERS' BRANCH,;FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND |
Dispute concerning the alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
Recommendation:
13. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court has come to the view that the worker concerned had given
cause for some dissatisfaction to the employer but in the light of
the lack of any recorded evidence of such dissatisfaction
recommends that the worker be paid a sum of #300 as settlement of
this claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87903 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11728
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: NEW-CLEAN SERVICES LIMITED
and
IRISH WOMEN WORKERS' BRANCH,
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company was incorporated in 1985 and is involved in office
and general cleaning services on a contract basis.
3. In September, 1986, the Company was awarded a contract for the
cleaning of the Ilac Centre. The Company took over the cleaning
of the Centre in October, 1986, and employed 2 workers who were
formerly employed by the Company which held the contract prior to
New-Clean Services Limited.
4. The worker involved in this dispute was one of the workers
retained. He was initially employed on a 3 month probationary
period from the 1st October, 1986. His gross weekly pay was #150
for a six day week (Monday - Saturday from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m.).
5. According to the Company the workers probation was extended
for a further month because of complaints received from client
company about the standard of work (this was disputed by the
Union).
6. On the 21st February, 1987, the worker had an accident at work
which resulted in his sustaining a broken leg. He was unfit for
work until the end of June, 1987.
7. On his return to work on the 29th June, 1987, he was
instructed to report for work at the Irish Life Mall. He was also
informed that his wages would be #120 a week based on a five day
week.
8. The worker was suspended from duty in the afternoon of the
30th June, 1987. He was instructed to report to the office the
following day. After a meeting with Management the worker was
dismissed. The Company wrote to the worker on 3rd July, 1987,
outlining its reasons for his dismissal as follows -
"Under the terms of your employment, you were with this
company on probation, which was suspended due to your absence
through illness.
Due to your refusal to obey orders, poor workmanship and
complaints from our client and your dissatisfaction with the
alternative duties offered to you, we find that we cannot
offer you permanent employment".
9. The Union contacted the Company regarding the worker's
dismissal and the reduction in his wages. The Company declined to
meet the Union. The Union referred the matter to a Rights
Commissioner. The Company declined an invitation to attend a
Rights Commissioners hearing and subsequently declined an
invitation to attend a Conciliation Conference at the Labour
Court.
10. The Union then requested an investigation and recommendation
by the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's
recommendation. Labour Court hearings were held on 22nd December,
1987, 4th January, 1988 and 8th February, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
11. 1. The worker's former employer International Contract
Cleaners Ltd. let him go reluctantly - due to factors outside
their control (loss of Contract). They gave the worker a
excellent reference stating that his time-keeping and
attendance were excellent. He was reliable and most
obliging; he could work on his own initiative without
supervision and he could take charge in the absence of the
Supervisor.
2. The Manager of the Ilac Centre where the worker was
employed for 5 years gave the worker the following reference
-
"That the worker is reliable, punctual, courteous and
hard-working".
These references, one from his former employer and the other
from the client Company, prove that the Company's allegations
as outlined in their letter of 3rd July, 1987, are wrong and
untrue.
3. Only for the worker's accident at work and subsequent
claim for compensation against the Company he would still be
in employment and on the original site.
4. The worker's probationary period was for 3 months and not
for a term longer than that (in fact he had 5 months
completed with the Company). The period 21st February, 1987,
to 29th June, 1987, was not a period when he was out through
illness as alleged by the Company but due to -
(a) the accident at work on 21.2.87,
(b) the operation of his knee on the 23rd February, 1987 and
(c) convalescence to the end of June, 1987.
5. The Union is asking the Court to recommend that the
worker be restored to his job in the original site at the
agreed contractual rate of #150.00 and also that he be
compensated for the period 1st July to 10th August, 1987.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
12. 1. The worker was dismissed because his work standards were
unsatisfactory. The Company received numerous complaints
from the client Company regarding the cleaning standards at
the Ilac Centre. These complaints were brought to the
attention of the worker concerned and he was warned verbally
on a number of occasions. Indeed because of his poor work
performance he had his probationary period extended.
2. The worker was afforded every opportunity to improve his
work performance and failed to do so. Prior to his dismissal
he was assigned to another centre and similar complaints were
received from that Centre.
3. The fact that the worker had an accident at work had
absolutely no bearing on the decision to dismiss him. His
claim for compensation is being dealt with by the Company's
insurers.
4. Because of the nature of the Company's business and the
competitiveness in the market place it is essential that the
highest standards are maintained at all times.
RECOMMENDATION:
13. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court has come to the view that the worker concerned had given
cause for some dissatisfaction to the employer but in the light of
the lack of any recorded evidence of such dissatisfaction
recommends that the worker be paid a sum of #300 as settlement of
this claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
2nd March, 1988 John O'Connell
M.D./P.W. Deputy Chairman