Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91407 Case Number: LCR13469 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: B.M.R. LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union that a worker should be re-instated.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties and noting
that the claimant was on probation at the time she was dismissed,
the Court is satisfied that in the circumstances the Company acted
within its rights. The Court, accordingly, does not recommend
concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91407 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13469
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: B.M.R. LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union that a worker should be re-instated.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures medical/healthcare products and is
located at Bunbeg, Co. Donegal. All new employees work a 6 month
probationary period. The worker concerned commenced employment
with the Company on 5th September, 1990. Following the Christmas
1990 break the Company re-opened for business on 2nd January,
1991. The worker did not report for duty until 3rd January, 1991.
She claimed she had been absent on 2nd January, 1991 to attend her
aunt's funeral and sought bereavement pay. Enquiries made by the
Company in late January, 1991 established that the funeral in
question had taken place on 30th December, 1990. On 25th January,
1991 the Company decided to terminate the employment of the worker
with one week's notice to expire on 1st February, 1991. At a
meeting on 7th February, 1991 between the parties the worker
apologised for misleading the Company regarding her absence on 2nd
January, 1991. The Union requested that a penalty of suspension
rather than dismissal be imposed and that the period of probation
be extended. On 14th February, 1991 the Company replied by letter
stating that it was not prepared to withdraw its letter of 25th
January, 1991 and consequently the worker's employment remained
terminated. The Union referred the matter to the Labour Court
under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A
Labour Court hearing took place in Letterkenny on 23rd October,
1991. Prior to the hearing the Union agreed to be bound by the
Court's recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker apologised for misleading the Company in
relation to her absence from work on 2nd January, 1991 and
promised that there would be no repetition. The worker has a
good employment record and is anxious to resume work. She
should be given another chance and be re-instated with a
period of suspension recorded.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The existing house agreement states that "all employees
considered unsuitable may at the absolute discretion of
management be dismissed during the probationary period". The
Union has acknowledged that the worker concerned was a
probationary employee and is pursuing this claim contrary to
the existing house agreement.
2. It is well established that a period of probationary
employment allows the employer to establish the suitability of
the employee to the employment and vice versa. Under the
house agreement probationary employees found unsuitable may be
discharged without regard to cause. While an employee may be
found to be unsuitable to a particular Company's requirements
he/she may be well suited to another employer's requirements.
3. During the period of the worker's employment the Company
had concerns about her suitability and her work performance.
On 16th January, 1991 the Company issued the worker with a
verbal warning in relation to events on 4th January, 1991
(details supplied to the Court).
4. Given the concerns that the Company had in relation to the
worker's suitability and the worker's effort to secure payment
in respect of her absence on 2nd January, 1991, the Company
terminated her employment in accordance with her terms and
conditions of employment. The Company is not prepared to
re-instate the worker.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties and noting
that the claimant was on probation at the time she was dismissed,
the Court is satisfied that in the circumstances the Company acted
within its rights. The Court, accordingly, does not recommend
concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_____________________
5th November, 1991 Deputy Chairman.
A.S./J.C.