Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91111 Case Number: LCR13228 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: HOWARD COLLINS ELECTRICAL LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
finds that the claimant's dismissal was not unfair and that there
is no basis on which it could recommend concession of his claim
for compensation. The Court, however, recommends that the
claimant accepts the 2 weeks' wages which were offered by the
Company subject to deduction by the Company of the expenses
incurred by it on the necessary replacement of locks and alarm on
their van.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91111 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13228
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1) OF THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: HOWARD COLLINS ELECTRICAL LIMITED
(Represented by Gallagher Shatter Solicitors)
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed by the Company as a van driver on the
21st May, 1990 and was let go on the 14th December, 1990. The
Company claim that the worker was unsatisfactory in a number of
respects. He did not like taking direction from his superiors nor
did he complete all deliveries.
Meetings between Management and the worker in early November and
early December failed to resolve the problem. Management decided
to let the worker go on the 14th December, 1990. The worker
claimed that he at all times carried out his duties in a
conscientious manner. He felt that the Company never intended to
make him permanent and that he was victimised by being let go
after 6 months. A Labour Court investigation took place into the
dispute on 5 March, 1991 under Section 20(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. The worker agreed to be bound by the
recommendation of the Court.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker has 14 years' experience as a driver and had
worked in a satisfactory manner during his period with the
Company. To secure the position in the first place, the
worker underwent 3 interviews. After the third interview,
there was a gentlemans' agreement with the managing director
that there would be a probationary period of 6 months. He
was, however, let go after 6 months, with no reasons given.
At this time management claimed that the probationary period
was 12 months. The letter of appointment stating this was
given to him on 22 November, 1990 but dated 21, May 1990
(details supplied to the Court). As far as he was concerned,
he got on well with his superiors and carried out all duties
assigned. The only difficulty was when he was sent to pick
up items, he found that they had not been ordered by his
superiors. This was a frequent occurrence and caused
difficulties. This is a reasonable complaint when you
consider that up to 16 collections had to be done daily.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was taken on subject to a 12 month
probationary period. It was stated that if he was found to
be unsatisfactory at any time during this period that he
would be let go. After 3 months Management were made aware
of complaints that the worker was inflexible and refusing to
carry out orders from his superiors because they were younger
than him. The complaints continued and in early November
Management had a meeting with the worker to discuss the
difficulties. Although there was some improvement after this
meeting, it was not sustained and a further meeting was held
in early December. After a final meeting on the 14th
December when the worker's attitude to his superiors and work
had not improved, it was decided that he should be let go.
The worker was offered a week's wages in cash plus cheques
for 2 further weeks which he refused to take. The keys of
the van were not returned which required the Company to spend
#200 on new locks and a new alarm. The Company feel that
great efforts have been made to resolve the dispute amicably
and the worker was let go as a last resort.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
finds that the claimant's dismissal was not unfair and that there
is no basis on which it could recommend concession of his claim
for compensation. The Court, however, recommends that the
claimant accepts the 2 weeks' wages which were offered by the
Company subject to deduction by the Company of the expenses
incurred by it on the necessary replacement of locks and alarm on
their van.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
19th March, 1991 Evelyn Owens
J.F. / M.O'C. _______________
Deputy Chairman