Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89716 Case Number: LCR12673 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: ROYAL NATIONAL LIFEBOAT INSTITUTION - and - A WORKER |
Claim by a worker concerning his alleged wrongful dismissal.
Recommendation:
5. The Court accepts that initially the Arklow area was
specified as the location of the workshop. However, it is
apparent that with the progress of time and an acceptance by the
Institution of the difficulties being confronted by the claimant,
the Institution acquiesced with a suggestion that an area other
than Arklow be considered. It was reasonable, in the Court's
opinion, for the claimant to attach an ongoing commitment by the
Institution to this suggestion having regard to its letter dated
19th April, 1989. This commitment was further reaffirmed in its
letter dated 31st May, 1989. The Court notes that the letter
dated 31st May, 1989 also contained a reference to a further
extension of the claimant's probationary period by three months
from that date.
It is the Court's opinion, having regard to the sequence of
events, and to the correspondence referred to above, that it was
not an unreasonable expectation on the part of the claimant that
by the end of the three months he would be confronted with either
of two positions, i.e. a satisfactory resolution of the workshop
placement problem, or a final acceptance by him of the
inevitability of re-locating in Arklow. In the event, it was the
latter course upon which the Institution decided and in fairness
to the claimant this decision should have been conveyed to him.
Overall, having considered the circumstances of his probationary
employment and the manner in which the employment was terminated
the Court has arrived at the conclusion that the claimant was
unfairly dismissed in that:-
(1) it was never intimated to him prior to his receipt of
letter of dismissal that a final decision had been
made regarding Arklow and
(2) he never received any notice of warning in his final
probationary period to the effect that if he did not
relocate to Arklow his employment would not be
continued.
Taking all aspects, including the length of service involved into
account, the Court therefore recommends that the claimant be
compensated by payment by the Institution of an amount equal to
one months salary.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89716 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12673
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: ROYAL NATIONAL LIFEBOAT INSTITUTION
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by a worker concerning his alleged wrongful dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. Following an interview with the Royal National Lifeboat
Institution in June, 1988, the worker was offered a position as
electronics engineer subject to a number of conditions including
the completion of a satisfactory six months probationary period
after which the worker would be required to relocate his home
address to the Arklow area. A workshop to be established at
Arklow would be designated as his headquarters. The worker
subsequently signed a contract of employment on 15th August, 1988
which specified the requirement to relocate his home address to
the Arklow area. He took up the appointment on 22nd August, 1988
and subsequently put his home in North Dublin up for sale. The
worker claims that at the interview for the job it was mentioned
that South Dublin would suffice regarding residence and he
therefore sought accommondation in the South Dublin
Bray/Greystones area. In late 1988 a portocabin was purchased for
use as a workshop and was sited at Arklow. The worker's six
months probationary period expired in February, 1989 and the
Institution sought clarification from the worker on the question
of his relocation to the Arklow area before a decision on his
confirmation could be made. The worker responded that he was
having difficulties and reservations about relocating to the
Arklow area. In view of the difficulties the worker had in
finding suitable accommodation nearer to Arklow the Institution
extended his probationary period by three months to May, 1989. In
March, 1989 the claimant wrote to the Institution concerning his
reservations regarding the suitability and poor condition of the
Arklow workshop and his conditions of employment. The Institution
agreed to examine the feasibility of transferring the workshop
from Arklow to a location closer to the worker's home address.
While this matter was under consideration the worker's
probationary period was extended for a further final three months
from May, 1989 to August, 1989 when a decision on confirming his
appointment would be made. The claimant sought alternative
locations for the workshop and in early July, 1989 he located a
potential premises in Glasnevin Industrial Estate. On 1st August,
1989 the Institution examined that premises and subsequently
decided there should be no change in the decision to locate a
workshop in Arklow. On 8th August, 1989 the Institution wrote to
the claimant advising him that his employment was being terminated
as he appeared unwilling to relocate to Arklow. The worker
appealed on 10th August, 1989 against his dismissal and agreed to
relocate to Arklow but his appeal was rejected. He made a further
appeal on 21st August, 1989 but this appeal was also rejected.
The worker claims wrongful dismissal and on 3rd October, 1989
requested a Labour Court hearing under Section 20(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. He agreed to be bound by the
Court's recommendation. The hearing took place on 21st November,
1989. The Federation of Irish Employers made a written submission
on behalf of the Institution but the Institution was not
represented and did not attend the hearing.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The original advertisement for the post with the
Institution stated that the applicant should be ideally
located near Arklow. It was mentioned at interview that South
Dublin would suffice regarding residence and that a workshop
would be based in Arklow.
2. In late 1988 a portocabin was purchased for use as a
workshop and sited in a boat yard in Arklow. There were
problems associated with the portacabin i.e. access was across
a boat carriage, the yard was frequently in flood, there were
no washing facilities, and the yard toilet was in a filthy
state. When reservations about the workshop were raised by
the worker the Institution agreed to examine the feasibility
of transferring the workshop from Arklow to a location nearer
Dublin.
3. The claimant was carrying out a search for premises in the
Dublin area on the basis that if a suitable premises could be
found in or near Dublin he would not have to relocate his home
to the Arklow area. Following the inspection of the potential
site at Glasnevin Industrial Estate he was not told that
Arklow was once again the only acceptable site for the
workshop until he received a letter of dismissal dated 8th
August, 1989. It seems that the Institution changed its mind
on relocation of the workshop without informing the claimant.
3. 4. The worker did not refuse to relocate his home. He only
expressed his reservations about moving his home to Arklow.
He thought that his reservations were understood as the
Institution agreed to examine suitable sites for the workshop
nearer the worker's home.
5. The worker made several appeals against his dismissal and
undertook to immediately relocate to Arklow on a Monday to
Friday basis. He agreed to purchase a house in the Arklow
area and relocate his family. Despite these assurances the
Institution was not prepared to re-appoint him.
6. The worker feels that he was treated in a very unjust and
discriminatory manner without due regard to the fact that he
carried out his work satisfactorily. His dismissal was a
grave injustice and was handled as badly as it could have
been. He feels this leaves a slur on his good character.
INSTITUTION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was notified by letter dated 4th July, 1988
following interview that he was being offered a position with
the Institution subject to certain conditions. One of the
conditions was that the claimant relocate his home address to
the Arklow area where a workshop would be established and
designated as his headquarters. The worker signed a contract
on 15th August, 1988 which again specified the requirement to
relocate to Arklow. The worker was never under any
misunderstanding regarding the contractual requirement to
relocate to the Arklow area.
2. When the worker introduced doubts regarding the
suitability of the Arklow workshop the Institution examined
the feasibility of transferring the workshop nearer to the
claimant's home but this proved impractical and the claimant
was made aware of the outcome. Despite this situation the
claimant continued to appear unwilling to relocate to the
Arklow area.
3. Despite extensions to his probationary period the worker
continued to appear reluctant to relocate to the Arklow area
and cited reservations such as the suitability of the Arklow
workshop, the cost of moving, and domestic reasons (details
supplied to the Court). The domestic reasons for not wanting
to relocate to Arklow were not notified to the Institution at
the interview.
4. On the 8th of August the worker was advised that his
employment was being terminated by reason of his failure to
fulfil his contractual requirement to relocate to the Arklow
area. The first time the claimant indicated that he would
transfer to Arklow was following his notice of dismissal and
on considering the events of the previous eleven months the
Institution was not prepared to alter its decision.