Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92243 Case Number: LCR13654 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: PACKARD ELECTRIC - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the dismissal of a worker.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties, noting the
appellant's record and the Company's efforts to retain him in
employment, the Court is of the view that the Company's final
decision to dismiss him was not unreasonable.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92243 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13654
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: PACKARD ELECTRIC
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the dismissal of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The worker first commenced employment with the Company on
19th June, 1989. He left on 31st August, 1989, to pursue a
career abroad. The worker was re-employed by the Company on
13th September, 1989, following extensive lobbying by the
Union. The worker's new contract of employment set a
probationary period of 12 months. The probationary period was
insisted upon because of the worker's performance during his
first period of employment.
2. During his re-employment, the worker was spoken to by his
supervisor regarding his work performance. On 3rd April,
1990, he was counselled because of his poor attendance. The
worker was also involved with the Company's Employee
Assistance Programme (E.A.P.) because of domestic
difficulties. On 25th April, 1990, the worker injured his
right hand while working and suffered pain and discomfort for
some months afterwards (details supplied).
3. On the expiry of the worker's 12 months probation, the
Company extended his probationary contract for a further 6
months with stricter conditions. The Company was dissatisfied
with the worker's work performance and his high level of
certified absence. The worker saw the Company doctor on 25th
November, 1990. The doctor could find no reason for the high
level of certified absence. The Company, as a result, decided
to regard any further certified absence as unauthorised, for
the duration of the contract.
4. The worker was dismissed following an absence from 4th to
7th December, 1990, in accordance with the temporary
employees' disciplinary procedure. The Union, by letter dated
30th March, 1992, sought a Labour Court investigation into the
dismissal. A Labour Court investigation under Section 20(1)
of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, took place on 11th May,
1992. The worker agreed to accept the recommendation of the
Court.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union accepts that the worker had a poor employment
record and under normal attendance criteria, his dismissal was
inevitable. The Union believes that in this case, other
circumstances must be taken into account. The worker had
severe domestic difficulties throughout his employment with
the Company. In this connection, the worker sought
counselling under the Company's E.A.P. programme. The
domestic difficulties were considerable and recurring factors
in the worker's patchy employment record.
2. The worker suffered an injury to his hand while at work
which had ongoing repercussions on his attendance patterns.
The recurring pain and discomfort over a period of 2 years is
certified by his specialist (details supplied). The Company's
responsibility in the matter was recognised by an "out of
Court" settlement.
3. The worker is only 20 years of age and the above mentioned
problems have caused him great difficulties in his first job.
The worker's domestic problems are now behind him and the
injury to his hand is improving. The Union accepts the
worker's bad record and the efforts made by the Company on his
behalf. There are special circumstances involved in this case
and the Union is seeking a degree of leniency in order to
allow the worker to prove himself.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was employed by the Company for 18 months and
in that time was treated very leniently. At an early stage in
his 12 month contract, the Company did not apply the
disciplinary procedures. This was in recognition of the
worker's domestic difficulties.
2. The worker's inadequate performance continued for so long
that it could not be ignored indefinitely (details supplied).
The worker was finally dismissed in accordance with the
procedure which applies to temporary workers. This was
accepted by the Union at the time (details supplied).
3. The performance of the worker was well short of the
Company's expectations. Despite several attempts no
improvement was forthcoming. The Company believes that its
record in the matter has been more than sympathetic. The
Company does not feel an obligation to give another
opportunity to the worker.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties, noting the
appellant's record and the Company's efforts to retain him in
employment, the Court is of the view that the Company's final
decision to dismiss him was not unreasonable.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_____________________
18th May, 1992. Deputy Chairman
J.F./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.