Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93469 Case Number: LCR14194 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: CENTRAL BANK OF IRELAND - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has given careful consideration to the points made
by the parties to this dispute in their written and oral
submissions.
The Court accepts that due to the nature of its business the Bank
has to operate a recruitment policy which may have requirements
particular to that business.
The Court further notes that under Clause 8 of the Terms of
Employment either party may terminate the employment during the
six month probationary period on one weeks notice.
In the circumstances of the case, which the Bank submits are of an
unusual and sensitive nature the Court concedes that the Bank were
entitled to implement Clause 8 referred to above in the manner in
which they did. The Court accordingly does not recommend
concession of the Union's claim.
The Court however is of the view that the claimant should be paid
the sum of #750 in addition to the payment already made in full
and final settlement of his claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93469 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14194
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: CENTRAL BANK OF IRELAND
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Bank as a
security guard on the 14th June, 1993. He was on a six months
probationary period. The worker was dismissed on the 18th June,
1993. The Union claimed that the dismissal was unfair and
referred the issue to a Rights Commissioner for investigation.
The Bank objected to such an investigation. On the 6th August,
1993 the Union referred the dispute to the Labour Court under
Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to
be bound by the Court's recommendation. The Court investigated
the dispute on the 10th September, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker concerned underwent an intensive vetting
procedure over a period of ten months prior to being
appointed. However, he was dismissed after a few days of
employment without a valid reason. The Union has not been
able to elicit an explanation from the Bank for the worker's
dismissal.
2. The worker resigned from a previous job as supervisor with
a security company to take up the appointment in the Bank.
The Bank's action in dismissing the worker has left a stain on
his character. He should be restored to his former position
forthwith.
BANK'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Under the Bank's terms and conditions of employment a six
months probationary period applies during which the employment
may be terminated by either party on one week's notice. The
Bank exercised its right to terminate the worker's employment
in accordance with the contract of employment.
2. The Bank on completing a review of its recruitment
procedures for security staff decided not to re-employ the
claimant for reasons related to the sensitive nature of its
responsibilities and in particular to the role played by its
security staff.
3. In recognition of the personal inconvenience and distress
caused to the worker the Bank made him an ex-gratia payment of
four weeks pay.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has given careful consideration to the points made
by the parties to this dispute in their written and oral
submissions.
The Court accepts that due to the nature of its business the Bank
has to operate a recruitment policy which may have requirements
particular to that business.
The Court further notes that under Clause 8 of the Terms of
Employment either party may terminate the employment during the
six month probationary period on one weeks notice.
In the circumstances of the case, which the Bank submits are of an
unusual and sensitive nature the Court concedes that the Bank were
entitled to implement Clause 8 referred to above in the manner in
which they did. The Court accordingly does not recommend
concession of the Union's claim.
The Court however is of the view that the claimant should be paid
the sum of #750 in addition to the payment already made in full
and final settlement of his claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
____________________
23rd September, 1993. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.