Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91619 Case Number: LCR13532 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: BALLYFREE FARMS LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Claim by the worker that she was unfairly dismissed.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has fully considered the information supplied by
both parties together with their oral and written submissions.
The Court finds that there is a conflict of evidence.
It is the view of the Court in all the circumstances the worker
concerned should be given the benefit of the doubt and offered the
first suitable vacancy on a probationary basis.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91619 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13532
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: BALLYFREE FARMS LIMITED
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the worker that she was unfairly dismissed.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was employed by the Company for 11 weeks
during the period May to August, 1991. She worked in the raw
meats department and was trained in a number of jobs in the
production area. On 2nd August, 1991 she was called into the
production manager's office and informed she was being let go.
The Company claim that the worker was unsuitable and that her
attendance was unreliable. The worker refutes this claim. The
worker referred the matter to the Labour Court for investigation
under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. Prior
to the Court's investigation of the matter on 11th December, 1991
the worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. When the worker commenced employment she was told it was
for a six months probationary period. When the worker was let
go she was told that it was a temporary lay-off due to a
shortage of work.
2. The manager unfairly criticised the worker in respect of
her work speed. She had the same speed as the other workers.
On one occasion she was told to slow down. The manager
frequently watched the worker, looking to see if she was doing
anything wrong.
3. The worker's supervisor never complained about her work.
4. When the Company employed new staff the supervisor asked
the worker to show them what to do. The worker was trained in
most of the jobs.
5. In respect of the worker's absence on the 3rd and 4th
July, 1991 she was sent home from work because she had an
infection. A medical certificate was submitted to the Company
for this absence.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company makes it clear to individuals when they join
the Company that the six months probationary period is a trial
period and that their work performance would be assessed by
their supervisors on a monthly basis.
2. The worker was assessed and it was felt that she was not
suitable for permanent employment with the Company. It is
Company policy not to communicate reasons as to why an
individual is not successful during their probationary period.
3. No medical certificate was received from the worker for
her absence on 3rd and 4th July, 1991. The records of the
supervisors concerned show that the worker was out sick and
that she made no contact with the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has fully considered the information supplied by
both parties together with their oral and written submissions.
The Court finds that there is a conflict of evidence.
It is the view of the Court in all the circumstances the worker
concerned should be given the benefit of the doubt and offered the
first suitable vacancy on a probationary basis.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
_____________________
21st January, 1992 Deputy Chairman.
F.B./J.C.