Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93208 Case Number: LCR14056 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: NEVILLE'S BAKERY DUBLIN - and - A WORKER;JOHN M. BOURKE AND COMPANY, SOLICITORS |
Claim, by the worker, that he was unfairly dismissed by the Company.
Recommendation:
6. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court noted the confusion which seems to have arisen in the mind
of the worker, which seems to have been due in the main to the
absence of a clear letter containing his terms of appointment and
particularly the terms of the probationary period, and the well
meant but misleading terms in which he was warned that his work
was unsatisfactory. In these circumstances the Court recommends
that he be reinstated for a further probationary period of 3
months during which time he should be warned specifically on any
matters on which he is considered unsatisfactory. The Court
wishes to point out that this recommendation does not diminish the
employer's right to exercise his option to give permanent
employment or not to the worker in the light of experience gained
during the probationary period.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93208 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14056
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: NEVILLE'S BAKERY DUBLIN
and
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY JOHN M. BOURKE AND COMPANY, SOLICITORS)
SUBJECT:
1. Claim, by the worker, that he was unfairly dismissed by the
Company.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker commenced employment with the Company on 28th July,
1992 and was dismissed from his employment on 4th December, 1992.
He was paid one weeks pay in lieu of notice. The reason given by
the Company for the worker's dismissal was his unsuitability for
the work involved.
3. The worker considered his dismissal unfair and referred the
dispute to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and
recommendation. The Company declined an invitation to attend a
Rights Commissioner's investigation. 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 16th April, 1993. The worker
agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. On the commencement of his employment the worker was
informed that he would be on 3 months probation. At the end
of this period he was informed that he appeared to have
difficulties learning the job and was urged to make better
efforts. He was not told that his job was in jeopardy.
2. The worker never received any written conditions of
employment and there were no formal procedures in place.
3. The worker was unaware of any complaints made against him
regarding his work performance and therefore, was not afforded
an opportunity to answer them.
4. The worker was enthusiastic about his job and made every
effort to perform his duties in a conscientious and efficient
manner.
5. The Court is asked to recommend that the worker be
reinstated to his former position in the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. All workers, when employed first, are advised that they
are on a 6 month trial period, with a review after 3 months.
There are no formal procedures put in place until an employee
successfully completes his/her trial period.
2. The worker was spoken to regarding his work performance on
a number of occasions (details supplied to the Court).
3. The worker was afforded every opportunity to improve his
performance but failed to do so. After approximately 5 months
his position was again reviewed. He was deemed unsuitable for
the work involved and as a consequence he was dismissed from
his employment.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court noted the confusion which seems to have arisen in the mind
of the worker, which seems to have been due in the main to the
absence of a clear letter containing his terms of appointment and
particularly the terms of the probationary period, and the well
meant but misleading terms in which he was warned that his work
was unsatisfactory. In these circumstances the Court recommends
that he be reinstated for a further probationary period of 3
months during which time he should be warned specifically on any
matters on which he is considered unsatisfactory. The Court
wishes to point out that this recommendation does not diminish the
employer's right to exercise his option to give permanent
employment or not to the worker in the light of experience gained
during the probationary period.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
__________________
28th April, 1993. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Daughen, Court Secretary.