Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90182 Case Number: LCR12897 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CONNAUGHT & COURT GROUP - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim on behalf of a worker for re-instatement following his alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
7. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court does not recommend the re-instatement of the worker
concerned but having regard to the Company's failure to adhere to
agreed disciplinary procedures recommends that he be paid a sum of
#200 compensation.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90182 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12897
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: CONNAUGHT & COURT GROUP
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of a worker for re-instatement following his
alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was employed in a temporary capacity from
17th October, 1989 as a general worker. He was engaged on 3
separate functions between then and January, 1990.
3. On 29th January, 1990 the worker did not report for duty. He
was contacted at home and indicated that he was on annual leave.
He was asked to report for duty on the following day which he did.
Following a meeting with management the worker was dismissed for
taking annual leave without permission and unsatisfactory work
performance. The worker maintains that the annual leave which he
took had been approved in advance by the production manager.
4. The Union referred the matter to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court on 8th March, 1990. A conciliation conference
was held on 23rd March, 1990. As no agreement was possible the
parties consented to a referral to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing was held on
25th May, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The worker was employed by the Company for four months.
As far as he was concerned he carried out his duties to the
best of his ability and was unaware of any difficulties. He
never received any warnings while employed about his work
performance. In fact no verbal, written or final warning had
been issued to the worker prior to his dismissal consequently
the Union contends that his dismissal was unfair.
2. The worker concerned was unemployed for two years prior to
securing a job with the Company. Although he was a temporary
worker he was hoping to be made permanent. Under these
circumstances it is highly unlikely that the worker here
concerned would jeopardise his job for the sake of a few days
leave.
3. It appears in this instance that there was a break down in
communication regarding the worker's annual leave. The worker
maintains that he applied for his annual leave in advance. He
was unaware of the procedure regarding obtaining payment in
advance. The Court is asked to recommend that the worker be
re-instated to his former position.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Company disputes that the worker applied for annual
leave in advance. There are procedures which have to be gone
through to ensure that holiday pay is ready for payment prior
to a worker going on leave. These procedures were not adhered
to in this case.
2. On the Friday prior to the worker taking annual leave he
was informed by the assistant production manager that as and
from the following Monday his duties and hours of work would
be changed. The worker did not indicate to the assistant
production manager that he would be unavailable on Monday.
3. Management had to speak to the worker concerned regarding
his work performance and he was moved to a different
assignments during his period of employment as his standard of
work was unsatisfactory. There were also other areas of
complaint. The Company regarded the workers behaviour as
unacceptable and having considered his overall performance and
the latest incident the Company was left with no alternative
but to terminate his employment.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court does not recommend the re-instatement of the worker
concerned but having regard to the Company's failure to adhere to
agreed disciplinary procedures recommends that he be paid a sum of
#200 compensation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
____________________________
6th June, 1990. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.