Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93432 Case Number: LCR14202 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: COM-PLAS PACKAGING - and - A WORKER |
Alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
5. Despite a conflict of evidence, the Court is satisfied that,
on the balance of probability, the claimant's appointment did
involve a probationary period. The main emphasis placed by the
Company, in justifying the action taken by them, was on the
claimant's aggressive attitude. However, the only occurrence of
such aggression submitted to the Court was that which led to the
dismissal. The Company contended that their action on that
occasion was limited to ' a first and final reprimand' and that it
was the claimant's refusal to accept the reprimand that led to his
choosing to leave the Company as an alternative. The claimant,
while admitting his reluctance to accept the reprimand, insisted
that he was "given the sack".
Having regard to all the evidence presented to it, the Court does
not find that the claimant has established grounds on which the
Court could find that his dismissal was unfair. However, the
Court is of the view that the immediate circumstances of the
dismissal were such that, in equity, the Company should make a
payment of #250 to him on an ex gratia basis. The Court so
recommends.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93432 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14202
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: COM-PLAS PACKAGING
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company on
18th January, 1993, as a warehouseman. His duties involved
deliveries, picking of orders, goods in, stock control and the
general upkeep of the warehouse. The worker's employment
terminated on 2nd April, 1993. The Company claims that during his
employment the worker made a number of mistakes. A mistake on 2nd
April, 1993, made by the worker caused embarrassment to the
managing director and it is claimed that his aggressive attitude
on that occasion made him unsuitable for employment in the
Company.
The worker referred the matter to the Labour Court for
investigation on 16th July, 1993, under Section 20(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the
Court's recommendation. The Labour Court investigated the matter
at a Court hearing on 7th September, 1993. An invitation to
have the matter investigated by a Rights Commissioner was declined
by the Company.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The serving of a period of probation was not a term of
the employment contract.
2. During his employment with the Company the worker was
led to believe that management were satisfied with his work.
3. 3. On 1st April, 1993, the worker and the managing director
made a number of deliveries. Two of the deliveries were of
goods which were not ordered by the customers. Although the
errors were not caused by him the managing director became
angry with the worker.
4. On 2nd April, 1993, the managing director made a
delivery of goods which were replacements for items previously
delivered. The items delivered were again wrong. On his
return he used abusive language towards the worker and
dismissed him without a proper explanation.
5. The worker was treated unfairly. He was made a
scapegoat for other persons' mistakes.
6. The worker's dismissal has affected his family, damaged
his reputation and his prospects of securing employment in the
future.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. On 2nd April, 1993, following a complaint from a
customer in relation to wrong goods being delivered the worker
concerned was asked to ensure that the correct items were
delivered. The managing director made the delivery and found
to his embarrassment that the replacement items were not as
ordered by the customer.
2. The worker refused to accept that he had made a mistake
and became abusive towards the managing director. He was
given an official warning for his carelessness and also his
attitude. The worker stated he would rather take the sack
than accept a reprimand.
3. A regular customer complained about the worker's
attitude.
4. The worker was on probation. All contracts of
employment in the Company contains a 6 months probationary
term.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Despite a conflict of evidence, the Court is satisfied that,
on the balance of probability, the claimant's appointment did
involve a probationary period. The main emphasis placed by the
Company, in justifying the action taken by them, was on the
claimant's aggressive attitude. However, the only occurrence of
such aggression submitted to the Court was that which led to the
dismissal. The Company contended that their action on that
occasion was limited to ' a first and final reprimand' and that it
was the claimant's refusal to accept the reprimand that led to his
choosing to leave the Company as an alternative. The claimant,
while admitting his reluctance to accept the reprimand, insisted
that he was "given the sack".
Having regard to all the evidence presented to it, the Court does
not find that the claimant has established grounds on which the
Court could find that his dismissal was unfair. However, the
Court is of the view that the immediate circumstances of the
dismissal were such that, in equity, the Company should make a
payment of #250 to him on an ex gratia basis. The Court so
recommends.~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
27th September, 1993 ---------------
F.B./U.S. Chairman
NOTE:
ENQUIRIES CONCERNING THIS RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO
MR FRAN BRENNAN, COURT SECRETARY.