Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92583 Case Number: LCR13818 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: SILVERCREST FOODS - and - A WORKER |
Dispute concerning the alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
Recommendation:
6. On the basis of the submissions in this case and in the light
of the fact that the worker was within the probationary period of
his employment, the Court does not consider him to have been
unfairly dismissed.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92583 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13818
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: SILVERCREST FOODS
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed from 12th February, 1992 to 22nd May,
1992 on a probationary period of six months.
3. On Saturday 23rd May, 1992 the worker failed to attend for
duty. On the following Monday he was dismissed from his
employment. The worker referred a claim for unfair dismissal to a
Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. The
Company declined an invitation to attend a Rights Commissioner's
hearing. The worker then referred the dispute to the Labour Court
for investigation and recommendation under Section 20(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place
on 12th October, 1992. The worker agreed to be bound by the
Court's recommendation.
4. The Company wrote to the Court on 29th September, 1992 stating
that the worker was on probation at the time of his dismissal and
that the reason for his dismissal was his failure to report for
duty on Saturday 23rd May, 1992, despite prior assurances that he
would do so. His absence caused operating difficulties as it was
a particularly busy period. The Company also informed the Court
that it would not be attending at the hearing as it considered its
procedures for dealing with workers on probation to be fair and
reasonable.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. Up to the day of his absence the worker had an exemplary
attendance and work record.
2. The worker was unable to attend work on the particular
Saturday as his mother was ill and he had to look after his
brothers and sisters. He was unable to contact his employer
on that day because of the disruption in the household due to
his mother's illness.
3. The employer did not take due consideration of the
worker's domestic problems when he dismissed him.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. On the basis of the submissions in this case and in the light
of the fact that the worker was within the probationary period of
his employment, the Court does not consider him to have been
unfairly dismissed.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
____________________
29th October, 1992. Deputy Chairman.
M.D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Daughen, Court Secretary.