Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9267 Case Number: LCR13644 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: BRINKS ALLIED LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of a worker concerning his alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
The Court accepts the Company in accordance with the conditions
of employment has the right, during the probationary period, to
terminate the employment of an employee.
The existence of this right however does not relieve the Company
of the obligation to exercise their right in a fair and
reasonable manner.
In this case no reasons were put forward to the individual or
the Court which would justify the dismissal. The Court, given
the exemplary record of the employee concerned (details
supplied) and the manner of his dismissal, considers the Company
did not exercise its right in a fair and reasonable manner and
accordingly finds that the dismissal of the employee whilst it
conformed with the conditions of employment was unfair in the
manner in which it was effected.
Since the Company in accordance with the letter of appointment
did have an "absolute right" of dismissal during the
probationary period. The Court does not consider it would be
appropriate to recommend compensation in this case. With regard
to the inference that the Company are influencing prospective
employers it is the view of the Court that if this is the case,
then, in the interest of natural justice, since the Company are
not prepared to advise the employee of the grounds for his
dismissal, they should not in these circumstances give advise or
impart information to a third party which is detrimental to the
employment prospects of the employee concerned.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9267 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13644
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: BRINKS ALLIED LIMITED
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of a worker concerning his
alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. Following three interviews with the Company, the worker
commenced employment as a Cash-in-Transit guard on 19th March,
1991. His employment was subject to a 6 month probationary
period. On 16th August, 1991, while preparing to load his
vehicle he was requested to report to the Manager's Office. On
reporting to the Manager's Office he was informed that he was
being dismissed with immediate effect. He was requested to hand
over his identity card and the key of his locker. He was then
escorted to his locker from where he removed his personal
property. He was refused permission to return to his vehicle to
get his lunch box (another worker retrieved this). The worker
was then escorted off the premises in full view of other
workers. The manager refused the worker's request that a shop
steward be present and a request for an interview with the
managing director. At no stage was the worker given any reason
for his dismissal. Later that day the shop steward, a union
branch official and the union branch secretary contacted the
manager separately, seeking an explanation for the worker's
dismissal. They were each advised that the matter was extremely
serious but he could not reveal the reasons for the dismissal.
The matter was subsequently referred to the conciliation service
of the Labour Relations Commission. At a conciliation
conference held on 19th September, 1991, the Industrial
Relations Officer suggested that the issue was more appropriate
to a rights commissioner. The company, however rejected this
suggestion. On 22nd January, 1992, the Union referred the
matter to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation
under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
Prior to the court's investigation of the dispute on 26th
February, 1992, the Union agreed to be bound by the Court's
recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company has dismissed the worker without providing
him with any explanation or allowing his shop steward be
present. Natural justice should allow the worker the
opportunity to defend himself.
2. The Company has indicated to the Union that the
worker's "offence" was extremely serious and are thousand
times more serious than an incident resulting in the
dismissal of another worker. The worker concerned has
never been afforded the opportunity of addressing this
charge.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker concerned was employed subject to 6 months
probation. The worker accepted that during this
probationary period his employment was at the sole
discretion of management, as per a Company/Union Agreement.
in accordance with its right, the Company decided to
terminate the worker's employment. In accordance with
standard practice in the industry, the worker returned his
uniform etc... and was escorted from the premises.
2. It is Company policy not to disclose the reasons for a
probationary dismissal. This is because the worker is
still on probation and the Company has to be absolutely
certain that he is right for the job. The probationary
clause has been used in the past to dismiss workers and no
reasons were given then.
3. Given the sensitive nature of its business the Company
requests the court to uphold its right to terminate a
probationer's employment in accordance with his contract
and the Company/Union agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court accepts the Company in accordance with the conditions
of employment has the right, during the probationary period, to
terminate the employment of an employee.
The existence of this right however does not relieve the Company
of the obligation to exercise their right in a fair and
reasonable manner.
In this case no reasons were put forward to the individual or
the Court which would justify the dismissal. The Court, given
the exemplary record of the employee concerned (details
supplied) and the manner of his dismissal, considers the Company
did not exercise its right in a fair and reasonable manner and
accordingly finds that the dismissal of the employee whilst it
conformed with the conditions of employment was unfair in the
manner in which it was effected.
Since the Company in accordance with the letter of appointment
did have an "absolute right" of dismissal during the
probationary period. The Court does not consider it would be
appropriate to recommend compensation in this case. With regard
to the inference that the Company are influencing prospective
employers it is the view of the Court that if this is the case,
then, in the interest of natural justice, since the Company are
not prepared to advise the employee of the grounds for his
dismissal, they should not in these circumstances give advise or
impart information to a third party which is detrimental to the
employment prospects of the employee concerned.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
________________________
6th May, 1992
M.D./N.Ni.M. Deputy Chairman
NOTE:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Daughen, Court Secretary.