Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93625 Case Number: LCR14294 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: ALPHA COMPUTER CLEAN LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
On the basis of the submissions made by the parties to this
dispute, and having regard to the fact that the employment was
covered by a six months probationary period, the Court has come to
the conclusion that the Company did not act unreasonably in
terminating the employment of the worker concerned.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93625 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14294
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: ALPHA COMPUTER CLEAN LIMITED
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the surface cleaning of computers
and allied equipment for a number of client companies. It employs
fourteen workers. The claimant commenced employment in March,
1993. He received a written contract of employment and was on a
six months probationary period. The worker was dismissed on the
4th June, 1993. The Union claimed that his dismissal was unfair
and on the 6th August, 1993 referred the dispute to the Labour
Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
The Union agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation. A
Court hearing was held on the 14th December, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union accepts that the worker had a few arguments
with management. However, these did not constitute
sufficient reason for the Company to arbitrarily dismiss him.
2. The Company failed to observe natural justice and did
not adhere to the procedures laid down in the worker's
contract of employment with regard to dismissal. He did not
receive advance notice of the Company's decision to dismiss
him following an argument with a supervisor.
3. The worker has been treated in an unfair and unjust
manner and is seeking compensation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. During the period of the claimant's employment his work
rate was poor. The number of units cleaned by him was below
the average for other workers, in quality and quantity. He
was reprimanded by a supervisor in relation to the quality
of his work, and became extremely abusive to the supervisor
in the presence of other workers and the client's
representative.
2. The Company issued a written warning to the worker on
the 12th May, 1993. Management was reluctant to allow him
work at client companies on his own. Although he apologised
for his outburst to the supervisor, and gave an undertaking
to improve both work performance and conduct, neither
improved.
3. The Company tried to assist the worker but formed the
opinion that he would not make a competent, efficient worker.
Management was left with no alternative but to dismiss him.
RECOMMENDATION:
On the basis of the submissions made by the parties to this
dispute, and having regard to the fact that the employment was
covered by a six months probationary period, the Court has come to
the conclusion that the Company did not act unreasonably in
terminating the employment of the worker concerned.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
17th December, 1993. Evelyn Owens
T.O'D./A.L. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.