Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92271 Case Number: LCR13648 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: TARA MINES - and - SIPTU |
Dispute concerning the dismissal of a worker.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
The Court is satisfied that the worker's treatment following the
Union/Management agreement of July, 1991 left him at a serious
disadvantage as regards the eventual decision by the Company to
dismiss him.
The Court therefore recommends that the Company immediately offer
him permanent employment subject to the usual conditions,
particularly with regard to probation.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92271 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13648
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 to 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
TARA MINES LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the dismissal of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. In 1990 there was a dispute between the parties
concerning the implementation of a manning agreement. The
dispute was referred to the Labour Court and LCR No. 12906
was issued on 8th June, 1990. The Court recommended in
relation to manning levels in the mill section that a 52 man
manning level be maintained. Before the issue of LCR 12906
and during subsequent local discussions the Company had
recruited temporary workers in the mill section to maintain
the manning level at 52. In July, 1991 the Company had 5
temporary workers employed, including the worker concerned.
He had been employed from 4th June, 1991 on a 6 month
contract. The other 4 temporary workers received offers of
permanent employment subject to the completion of 4 months
satisfactory probation. The worker concerned received no
offer of permanency and had his employment terminated by the
Company in January, 1992. The Union claims that the worker
was discriminated against as he was treated differently by
the Company. He should have been offered employment on the
same terms as the other 4 temporary workers. The Company
claims that the worker was unsuitable and that it exercised
its prerogative to dismiss him.
2. No agreement was reached at local level discussions and
the matter was referred on 7th April, 1992 to the Labour
Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on
6th May, 1992 at which no agreement was reached and the
dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 18th June, 1992
in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on 9th July,
1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In July, 1992 the parties agreed at local level that the
positions which were being filled on a temporary basis would
become permanent. On 12th July, 1991 the Company issued a
letter to the Union which stated that "the five temporary
mill employees will be made permanent in the coming week"
(copy of the letter supplied to the Court). It was not
necessary to name the 5 temporary workers as there were only
5 temporary workers employed at that time. However, the
Company unfairly discriminated against the worker concerned
by not offering him the same terms of employment as the other
4 temporary workers. The Company also breached the local
agreement which it had reached with the Union and had
confirmed in the letter of 12th July, 1991.
2. The worker should have been offered permanency in
accordance with article 10 of the Comprehensive Agreement.
Under article 10 all new employees undergo a 4 month
probationary period during which the employee may be
dismissed at the discretion of the Company. This article
adequately protects the Company and affords the worker
representation by the Union to rectify any problems during
the probationary period.
3. The Union does not accept that the worker's dismissal
was warranted on the basis of his performance. The other
workers in the mill regard the treatment of the worker as
unfair and have provided him with financial support since his
dismissal. The worker should be re-instated in order to
achieve natural justice.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker concerned was employed on a temporary
contract. He is not covered by article 10 of the
comprehensive agreement. During his employment he was warned
by the personnel manager that if his performance did not
improve he would be dismissed. The worker's performance did
not improve and his employment was terminated in January,
1992.
2. The Company gave the worker sufficient warnings to avoid
the termination of his employment. It was made clear to him
that his contract was for 6 months and that it was up to him
to ensure he would achieve permanent status.
3. The Company does not terminate a worker's employment
lightly. However, when circumstances so warrant any Company
must have the right to dismiss an unsatisfactory or
unsuitable employee. The Company was within its rights to
dismiss the worker.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
The Court is satisfied that the worker's treatment following the
Union/Management agreement of July, 1991 left him at a serious
disadvantage as regards the eventual decision by the Company to
dismiss him.
The Court therefore recommends that the Company immediately offer
him permanent employment subject to the usual conditions,
particularly with regard to probation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
5th August, 1992 John O'Connell
A.S.\M.H. ----------------------------
Deputy Chairman.
NOTE:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Alfie Smith, Court Secretary.