Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8958 Case Number: LCR12299 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: KESTREL S.M.P. LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Dispute concerning the alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
Recommendation:
7. The Court noting that the Employer did not attend the hearing
but submitted a written statement has come to the conclusion that
the circumstances surrounding the termination of the claimant's
employment did not conform with acceptable industrial relations
procedures.
The Court, therefore, is satisfied that the claimant has not been
treated in a fair manner and accordingly recommends that the
Company provide the claimant with a suitably worded reference as
an aid to obtaining further employment.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8958 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12299
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: KESTREL S.M.P. LIMITED
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company on
7th March, 1988. He was sent on an AnCo course which lasted 12
weeks. On completion of the course he entered employment on the
shop floor. His hours of work were 8.30 a.m. to 5.00 p.m., Monday
to Friday. He sometimes worked overtime which required an earlier
start in the morning and for a later finish in the evening as well
as Saturday work. There was no "clocking in" system in the
factory. The workers signed a ledger when they arrived for work
and also when they left.
3. On the 9th December, 1988 the worker was told to report to the
Managing Director's office where he was informed that he was being
dismissed forthwith for a gross misconduct of employment. His
services were no longer required and he was paid a week's wages in
lieu of notice. The Employer alleged that the worker had been
late for work on 6 occasions and had signed the ledger for 8.30
a.m.
4. The worker referred his case to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. The Company declined an
invitation to attend a Rights Commissioner's investigation. The
worker then referred his case to the Labour Court under Section
20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. He agreed to be
bound by the Court's Recommendation. The Court investigated the
dispute in Dundalk on 21st February, 1989.
5. By letter dated 20th February, 1989 the Company's
representative stated that the Company would not be attending or
be represented at the Court hearing. It further stated inter alia
that the worker was offered full time employment in July, 1988
after a probationary period on condition that both his quality of
work and efficiency improved significantly. It also stated that
the worker had been verbally warned on several occasions about his
quality of work and his failure to meet agreed targets and also
that he had arrived for work late on at least two occasions and
signed in for 8.30 a.m.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The worker denied that he ever falsified the "signing on"
ledger. He never received any warnings either verbally or
written regarding his attendance record or the quality of his
workmanship.
2. The worker does not know why he was dismissed. He was
only made aware of the Company's complaints about his time
keeping on the day he was dismissed. He was given no other
reasons for his dismissal.
3. He was not given an opportunity to defend himself. In
view of these circumstances the worker asks the Court to find
that he was unfairly dismissed and to recommend that his
Employer furnish him with a suitably worded reference which
will be of assistance to him in securing future employment.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. The Court noting that the Employer did not attend the hearing
but submitted a written statement has come to the conclusion that
the circumstances surrounding the termination of the claimant's
employment did not conform with acceptable industrial relations
procedures.
The Court, therefore, is satisfied that the claimant has not been
treated in a fair manner and accordingly recommends that the
Company provide the claimant with a suitably worded reference as
an aid to obtaining further employment.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
___________________
1st March, 1989
M. D. / M. F. Deputy Chairman.