Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92618 Case Number: LCR13853 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: DOYLES QUALITY PRODUCTS LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Dispute concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has given consideration to all the matters contained
in the submissions from the parties involved in this dispute, and
the oral evidence given at the hearing. It was clear from the
evidence that the Company made no effort to inform or advise the
worker of the attitude to work expected of new employees. This
was particularly unfortunate having regard the fact that the
Company were well aware that the worker had been self employed for
many years and could have difficulty in adjusting to the structure
of a factory-type operation.
In all the circumstances, while recognising the Company's rights
during a probationary period, the Court recommend that the worker
be re-employed. A new period of probation should commence from
the date of re-employment and during that 6-month period the
Company should make every effort to assist the worker in adjusting
to the work structures and environment in the plant. For his part
the worker should undertake to co-operate fully with the Company
Management.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92618 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13853
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: DOYLES QUALITY PRODUCTS LIMITED
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a bakery and is involved in the production,
wrapping and distribution of bread. The worker was appointed to
the position of Night-Loader in April, 1992, having been employed
on a part-time basis with the Company from February, 1992. On the
6th of August, 1992, the worker was dismissed by the Company. He
contends that the dismissal was unfair on the grounds that he was
a good worker. He is seeking reinstatement and compensation from
the Company. The Company contend that the worker was unsuitable.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 5th of October
1992, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. The Labour Court investigated the dispute on the 9th
of November, 1992.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The position of Night-Loader was full-time and permanent.
The then bakery manager said that a trial period was not
necessary, due to the worker's previous satisfactory
performance and record with the Company.
2. The National Wage Agreement 3% increase was conceded to
the worker on the grounds that the worker's position was
permanent, as acknowledged by the new bakery manager.
3. Difficulty arose over 'clocking-out' procedures due to the
fact that the worker was able to complete his work before
finishing time. To clock-out then would have given an
incorrect impression of his work. When it was put to the
worker that by refusing to clock-out he would be "sacking"
himself, he agreed to clock-out.
4. The worker had refused to wrap crusty bread only because
new plastic wrapping released fumes that caused him severe
nosebleeds.
5. When the worker was dismissed, the only reason given by
the Company was that he was "not suitable".
6. At all times during his employment with the Company, the
worker was never late, never refused to comply with any order
or request, and always completed his work satisfactorily.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was employed on trial as a Night-Loader in
April, 1992. His duties included wrapping and loading bread
and his shift was from 8 p.m. to 4.30 a.m. He rarely if ever
had to work his full shift.
2. The National Wage Agreement increase of 3% was given to
the worker in-line with other employees even though he was
still on trial. The possibility of a change in shifts was
discussed with the worker. He stated that he would rather
leave than work days. It was pointed out clearly to the
worker that he was on trial.
3. On the 14th of July, the worker refused to wrap crusty
bread, contending that it was not his work. He had previously
done this type of work, as had other Night-Loaders.
4. The worker continually refused to clock-out when requested
to do so. He was warned that by failing to comply with a
legitimate request from the Company, he would effectively be
sacking himself.
5. When the employee was dismissed, it was explained to him
that he was unsuitable, in response to which he became
aggressive and threatening. This behaviour was witnessed by
the Dispatch Manager, who was of the opinion that the worker
worked well, but had an attitude problem.
6. The worker's attitude to work was all wrong and he was
unavailable to work different shifts (changing shifts is a
feature of the bakery industry).
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has given consideration to all the matters contained
in the submissions from the parties involved in this dispute, and
the oral evidence given at the hearing. It was clear from the
evidence that the Company made no effort to inform or advise the
worker of the attitude to work expected of new employees. This
was particularly unfortunate having regard the fact that the
Company were well aware that the worker had been self employed for
many years and could have difficulty in adjusting to the structure
of a factory-type operation.
In all the circumstances, while recognising the Company's rights
during a probationary period, the Court recommend that the worker
be re-employed. A new period of probation should commence from
the date of re-employment and during that 6-month period the
Company should make every effort to assist the worker in adjusting
to the work structures and environment in the plant. For his part
the worker should undertake to co-operate fully with the Company
Management.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
____________________
16th November, 1992. Deputy Chairman.
M.K./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.