Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93261 Case Number: AD9349 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: TRALEE SUPER BOWL - and - A WORKER;MR. DENIS O'BRIEN |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. B.C. 384/92.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
is of the view that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation
should be upheld.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and so decides.
In view of the Company's submission in relation to ability to pay
the Court recommends that payment be made in two equal payments -
the first payment due in 6 months and the 2nd in 12 months from
date of this decision.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93261 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD4993
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: TRALEE SUPER BOWL
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
and
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY MR. DENIS O'BRIEN)
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. B.C.
384/92.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed by the Company on the 12th of
February, 1992 in the capacity of Assistant Manager. He was
dismissed from his employment on the 23rd of September, 1992, on
the grounds that he had not satisfactorily completed his
probationary period of six months. The worker contended that it
had been made clear to him during interviews for the position,
that a probationary period would not be required, due to his
considerable experience and previous achievements.
The dispute was investigated by a Rights Commissioner on the 10th
February, 1993. He found that the dismissal was unfair and
recommended that the Company pay the worker the sum of #3,500. He
also recommended that the payment should be accepted by the worker
in full and final settlement of all claims on the employer. The
worker appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation on the
grounds that the amount of #3,500 was insufficient, given the
emotional effect of the unfair dismissal on him, the length of
time that he has been unemployed since his dismissal and the
damage to his reputation within the industry.
The Labour Court investigated the appeal, in Tralee, on the 1st of
June, 1993.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The requirement of a probationary period was neither
implied by the Company nor agreed between the parties. During
interview it was made clear by the Company that, as the worker
had worked in a similar operation in Limerick, no probation
period would be necessary.
2. The Company behaved irresponsibly in failing to give the
worker notice of his dismissal and by failing to provide him
with written contract and terms of reference, despite numerous
requests from him.
3. Difficulties which had arisen between the worker and his
manager were sorted out on a personal basis, following a
meeting with the directors, in June, 1992.
4. On several occasions during his employment, the worker was
informed by the Company's directors that his performance was
very satisfactory.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It is normal practice that all employees with the Company
are subject to a probationary period of at least six months.
Although the worker may not have received a written contract
of employment, six months' probation was implied in his
contract with the Company.
2. The worker's working relationship with his immediate
Manager created operational difficulties for the
Company. He failed to fulfil his duties regarding the
organisation of the 1992 Munster Snooker Close Championships.
He also caused great confusion amongst staff and clients by
undermining his Manager's position with the Company.
3. In June and September, 1992, the Company formally
indicated to the worker its dissatisfaction with his
performance. The Company's dissatisfaction was clearly
communicated to the employee and his employment was terminated
in accordance with probationary practices.
4. As the Company is just 12 months in operation, it cannot
financially afford to absorb the cost of #3,500 is outlined in
the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
is of the view that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation
should be upheld.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and so decides.
In view of the Company's submission in relation to ability to pay
the Court recommends that payment be made in two equal payments -
the first payment due in 6 months and the 2nd in 12 months from
date of this decision.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
___________________
21st June, 1993. Deputy Chairman.
M.K./J.C.