Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93136 Case Number: LCR14047 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: LOTUS DEVELOPMENT IRELAND LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Claim, by the worker, that he was unfairly dismissed from his employment.
Recommendation:
7. The Court is of the opinion that in this case the worker, a
young man with a good work record, was not suitable for the type
of work on offer by the Company and since his probationary period
had been extended the Company was in fact entitled to let him go
when it appeared that he was not responding to the training
offered.
The Court therefore does not recommend in favour of the worker.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93136 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14047
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 AND 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: LOTUS DEVELOPMENT IRELAND LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY KENNY, STEPHENSON AND CHAPMAN, SOLICITORS)
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Claim, by the worker, that he was unfairly dismissed from his
employment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company, which is based at Cloghran, Co. Dublin, is
involved in the computer software industry. It employs
approximately 270 full time workers together with a further 80-100
temporary workers, who are employed from time to time. The
Company seeks, where possible, to absorb temporary workers into
its full-time staff.
3. The worker concerned, together with other workers, was
employed on a fixed term contract from 2nd November, 1992 to 31st
December, 1992. The position was subject to a probationary period
of one week and after that period, notice of termination required
one week's written notice. The worker was dismissed from his
employment on 10th November, 1992.
4. The worker considered that he was unfairly dismissed and
referred the dispute 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 24th March, 1993. The worker
agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The worker disputes the reason given for his dismissal
i.e. that his work was not up to standard. During his period
of employment he worked to two trainers. The second trainer
to whom he worked was bad tempered and abusive. This made the
worker nervous and agitated (details supplied to the Court).
2. The Company failed to act when this situation was brought
to management's notice.
3. The worker was never informed that his work was of poor
quality.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Company denies the worker's allegation that the
trainer assigned to him was abusive or bad tempered towards
him. He was treated no differently to other trainees.
2. The worker's work performance was not up to standard. The
Company could have dismissed him at the end of the first week
but decided to give him a further opportunity to prove
himself. The worker failed to avail of this opportunity and
the Company was left with no option but to dismiss him.
3. The Company dedicates considerable resources to the
recruitment of temporary workers as it views these
appointments as potentially permanent.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. The Court is of the opinion that in this case the worker, a
young man with a good work record, was not suitable for the type
of work on offer by the Company and since his probationary period
had been extended the Company was in fact entitled to let him go
when it appeared that he was not responding to the training
offered.
The Court therefore does not recommend in favour of the worker.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
____________________
20th April, 1993. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Daughen, Court Secretary.