Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88654 Case Number: LCR12065 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: MCCULLOUGH PIGOTT - and - A WORKER |
Claim by a worker for alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
5. The claimant was dismissed after the conclusion of the
probationary period. The reasons for the dismissal are disputed
and the claimant, at the hearing of the case, described to the
Court his view of the circumstances in which the dismissal took
place. As the Company decided not to attend the hearing these
circumstances could not be rebutted and the Court accepts the
claimants version of those events and finds that he was unfairly
treated. The Court therefore recommends that he be paid #700 as
compensation for the unfairness which he suffered.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Heffernan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88654 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12065
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: MCCULLOUGH PIGOTT
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by a worker for alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company on
22nd September, 1987 on a six month probationary period as a
houseman. His duties involved cleaning and other general duties.
On 20th April, 1988 the worker was informed following a review of
his work that his employment was terminated. On 29th August, 1988
the worker referred a claim for unfair dismissal to the Labour
Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
The worker agreed to be bound by the recommendation of the Court.
The Court investigated the dispute on 23rd September, 1988. The
Company through the F.U.E. advised the Court by letter of 21st
September, 1988 that it would not be represented at the hearing
because the Company did not consider itself to be in dispute with
the worker, as his employment had been terminated due to his
unsatisfactory work performance during his probationary period.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was never told by management that they were
dissatisfied with him or his work. The worker had an
excellent attendance and time keeping record and some weeks
before his dismissal the Company Secretary told the worker
that management was very pleased with him. The worker also
had a discussion with management the week before his dismissal
at which it was agreed that his conditions of employment would
be reviewed and the situation regarding a permanent
appointment would be clarified. On the day of his dismissal
the worker asked management for a meeting. The Managing
Director was busy and later when a meeting took place with
management the worker was dismissed.
2. The worker had a positive attitude to his work. He often
started work early, stayed late at work with little notice and
worked breaks to facilitate other workers. The worker carried
out all his duties without complaining and also carried out
work on his own initiative. The dismissal was unfair.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
(taken from F.U.E. letter of 21st September, 1988 referred to
above)
4. 1. During the worker's probationary period both the Company
Secretary and Managing Director found it necessary to speak to
him on a number of occasions and to request an improved effort
and performance. Several tasks were inadequately performed
and some were not finished despite reminders. During the
worker's probationary period the Company Secretary called the
worker to his office to express his dissatisfaction with the
worker and to remind him that his performance was being
monitored and that a review was pending. The worker was very
reluctant to accept any criticism.
2. While he was with the Company the worker's reaction to any
criticism or counselling was extremely negative. Following
the return of the Managing Director from annual leave the
review of the worker's employment took place and his
shortcomings were discussed with him. However the worker was
difficult to reason with and he was very argumentative. The
meeting adjourned so that the Company could make a final
decision. A further meeting took place on 20th April, 1988
and the worker was informed that the Company was not prepared
to offer permanent employment to him. There is a good
positive work atmosphere in the Company and this worker's
attitude was far below the desired standard.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The claimant was dismissed after the conclusion of the
probationary period. The reasons for the dismissal are disputed
and the claimant, at the hearing of the case, described to the
Court his view of the circumstances in which the dismissal took
place. As the Company decided not to attend the hearing these
circumstances could not be rebutted and the Court accepts the
claimants version of those events and finds that he was unfairly
treated. The Court therefore recommends that he be paid #700 as
compensation for the unfairness which he suffered.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M. Horgan
---------------
10th October, 1988. Chairman
U.M./J.C.