Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93544 Case Number: LCR14251 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: BUS EIREANN - and - NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION |
Termination of employment.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court does
not consider that the action of the Company in dismissing the
claimant was unfair or unreasonable. In the circumstances, the
Court does not recommend concession of the Union claim.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93544 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14251
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1969 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: BUS EIREANN
AND
NATIONAL BUS AND RAIL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Termination of employment.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The worker concerned commenced employment with the
Company, as a bus-driver, on 19th October, 1992. His
contract was subject to the satisfactory completion of a
probationary period of 12 months. All new entrants to the
driver grade attend an induction course of 9 days duration,
during which they are advised on all matters pertaining to
driving, ticketing, personal behaviour, customer care, etc..
2. The worker's employment was terminated on 8th September,
1993. The Company claims that his work performance during
his probationary period, was unsatisfactory and that he is
unsuitable for permanent employment. The Union rejected the
Company's claim.
3. The Union referred the matter to the Labour Court on
10th September, 1993, under Section 20(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's
recommendation. The Labour Court hearing took place on 26th
October, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The circumstances surrounding the worker's dismissal
was not satisfactory. He was not warned by management that
he was in danger of being dismissed.
2. The worker is a married man with a young family. The
retention of his position is of paramount importance to him.
3. During the period of his employment with the Company,
the worker was contented and found the work interesting and
enjoyable.
4. The number of shortages incurred by the worker is
average for new drivers. All shortages were repaid in full.
5. A virus which left the worker feeling tired caused him
to report late for work on a number of occasions. He
attended a doctor in relation to the illness who certified
him unfit for work for 5 days.
6. When the worker was interviewed by management after 6
months employment, he was advised that his time-keeping would
have to improve or his period of probation would be extended.
He was also informed that there were no other complaints
regarding his work. He was not told that his job was in
jeopardy.
7. The worker has been treated unfairly by the Company.
Since the interview with management he has worked hard,
including long hours on overtime and rest-day working. His
attendance record is good under the circumstances and
compares favourably with other workers in similar
circumstances. He should be reinstated by the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker concerned was recruited as a driver on twelve
months probation as stated in his contract of employment:-
"your employment will be probationary for the first
twelve months. Termination of this agreement within the
probationary period shall be at the discretion of the
Company".
2. The probationary period of employment is essential to
the Company so that it can assess a new driver's suitability
for all aspects of driver's duty.
3. During the course of his employment, there were
forty-five occasions when the worker incurred cash shortages.
These occurrences continued despite the fact that he was
spoken to by the chief clerk on 26th and 30th November, 1992,
when he was advised that cash shortages were not acceptable.
4. Other breaches of regulations included being late for
work on ten occasions and failing to operate as instructed on
seven occasions.
5. The worker was spoken to by management on 27th January,
1993, and 21st April, 1993, regarding his work performance.
On each occasion he was advised that unless there was a
considerable improvement in how he carries out his duties his
probationary period of employment would be terminated. No
such improvement took place.
6. The worker's work performance during the period of his
employment was most unsatisfactory. The Company had no
choice, bearing in mind the opportunities afforded to the
worker to improve his level of performance, but to terminate
his employment.
7. The worker is unsuitable for the position of bus-driver
in the Company's service and could not, therefore, be
considered for appointment to the regular staff.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court does
not consider that the action of the Company in dismissing the
claimant was unfair or unreasonable. In the circumstances, the
Court does not recommend concession of the Union claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
15th November, 1993 Kevin Heffernan
F.B./A.L. _______________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should by addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.