Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90679 Case Number: LCR13232 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: CONNACHT & COURT GROUP, - and - A WORKER |
Claim by a worker that she was unfairly dismissed.
Recommendation:
5. The Court finds it unacceptable that a Company seeks to have
it's views taken into account while at the same time does not
extend to the Court the courtesy of attending or being represented
at the hearing.
The Court nevertheless has considered all of the views put forward
by the worker and the Company. The Court considers the
circumstances of the employment of the worker as described and the
short duration of that employment not in keeping with the normal
practice on the induction of workers into employment.
Given the very basic nature of the jobs concerned the Court is of
the view that little effort was made by the Company to cater for a
reasonable introduction of the worker to the employment.
The Court finds that in all the circumstances the worker concerned
was unfairly treated.
Notwithstanding the above the Court recognises the worker was on
probation and the Company could terminate her employment, and in
fact chose to take this course of action. In these circumstances,
the Court is unable to award compensation for the loss of
employment. The Court considers the Company should seek for the
future to provide induction procedures which will recognise the
needs of the Company and ensure fair treatment of the workers.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90679 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13232
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: CONNACHT & COURT GROUP,
LINEN SUPPLY OF IRELAND LIMITED
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by a worker that she was unfairly dismissed.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker commenced employment with the Company on
Wednesday, 29th August, 1990. She was advised that the employment
was initially on a trial basis and that should her employment
prove satisfactory a permanent position would be offered to her
following a six months probationary period. She commenced work as
a packer and after three days she was moved to the hanging
section. After two days work in the hanging section the Company
terminated her employment on 4th September, 1990. The worker
claims that she was unfairly dismissed and that she had not
received any criticism or complaint regarding her work performance
while employed by the Company. The Company claims the worker
proved unsuitable during the initial trial period. The worker
referred the matter to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place
on 21st January, 1991. The Company did not attend and was not
represented at the investigation but it made a written submission
to the Court prior to the hearing. The worker agreed to be bound
by the recommendation of the Court.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker claims that she was punctual in her
attendance for work and that she tried hard to carry out the
duties assigned to her. After the first three days at work
she was moved from the packing section to the hanging
section. She received no indication of any criticism of her
work at that stage or at any other time during her employment
with the Company.
2. The worker claims that she was the subject of harassment
throughout the period of her employment (details supplied to
the Court). Certain members of the staff and management took
a dislike to her and this led to the eventual unfair
termination of her employment.
3. The non-attendance of the Company at the hearing is
disgraceful and shows a complete lack of understanding on the
part of the Company. The termination of her employment has
been destructive and it creates difficulties for her in
securing future employment.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was employed for a six month probationary
period and it was explained to her that her employment was
initially on a trial basis. Following three days employment
in the packing section the Company advised the worker that it
was dissatisfied with her performance and moved her to the
hanging section. After two days in the hanging section the
worker proved unsuitable and her employment was terminated.
2. The Company rejects the worker's claim that she was the
subject of harassment throughout her short period of
employment with the Company. No form of harassment ever took
place.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court finds it unacceptable that a Company seeks to have
it's views taken into account while at the same time does not
extend to the Court the courtesy of attending or being represented
at the hearing.
The Court nevertheless has considered all of the views put forward
by the worker and the Company. The Court considers the
circumstances of the employment of the worker as described and the
short duration of that employment not in keeping with the normal
practice on the induction of workers into employment.
Given the very basic nature of the jobs concerned the Court is of
the view that little effort was made by the Company to cater for a
reasonable introduction of the worker to the employment.
The Court finds that in all the circumstances the worker concerned
was unfairly treated.
Notwithstanding the above the Court recognises the worker was on
probation and the Company could terminate her employment, and in
fact chose to take this course of action. In these circumstances,
the Court is unable to award compensation for the loss of
employment. The Court considers the Company should seek for the
future to provide induction procedures which will recognise the
needs of the Company and ensure fair treatment of the workers.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
25th March, 1991 Tom McGrath
A.S./M.O'C. _______________
Deputy Chairman