Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93705 Case Number: LCR14411 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: CONSERVATION VOLUNTEERS IRELAND - and - A WORKER |
Alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
The Court has given careful consideration to all the points made
in extensive submissions from the parties to this dispute. The
Court is satisfied that the trust essential for a satisfactory
Employer/Employee relationship is absent and incapable of
restoration. Taking into account the length of time the employee
was engaged by C.V.I. and the incidents leading up to the
termination of his employment the Court has concluded that he was
not unfairly treated and accordingly the Court does not find his
claim of unfair dismissal sustained.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93705 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14411
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
CONSERVATION VOLUNTEERS IRELAND
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. Conservation Volunteers Ireland (C.V.I.) is involved in
practical environmental conservation through quality projects and
training. It has sixteen affiliate associations. The worker
concerned commenced employment as Executive Director in June 1993.
He was on a six months probationary period. The worker's main
duties involved ensuring the financial viability of C.V.I. and
the successful execution of the organisation's projects. He was
dismissed on the 5th November, 1993. The worker claimed that his
dismissal was unfair and sought to refer the dispute to a Rights
Commissioner for investigation. C.V.I. objected to such an
investigation. On the 17th December, 1993 the worker 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 7th
February, 1994. Subsequent to the hearing both parties submitted
comprehensive additional information which was considered by the
Court.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. One of the worker's specific tasks in C.V.I. was to act
as Project Manager of the Euroform Training Project. This
was established to train affiliate organisations and the
programme would be worked out with each affiliate according
to needs. The worker was completely dissatisfied with the
manner in which a substantial EC grant for the Euroform
Project was administered. At numerous Board meetings he
voiced fears that the grant was not distributed in accordance
with the guidelines laid down. He also voiced fears
concerning the distribution of funds to projects other than
for the training of affiliate organisations for which purpose
the grant was allocated. (Details supplied to the Court).
The Board resented his criticisms as did other members of
staff, one of whom tried to undermine his position in the
organisation (details supplied to the Court).
2. The worker was diligent and competent in the performance
of his duties. He was arbitrarily dismissed without proper
notice and in breach of the six months agreed probation. He
was treated in a most unfair and unjust fashion simply
because he tried to do his job correctly and in accordance
with his contract of employment. The worker has suffered
loss of earnings and damage to his professional reputation as
a result of the dismissal.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. From the time of commencement of the worker's employment
he experienced serious difficulties in dealing with staff.
He attempted to dismiss a senior, and valued, competent
worker without Board approval. Morale amongst staff was very
low and representations were made by the workforce to the
Board about the claimant's behaviour.
2. The worker was unable to adequately perform the job to
which he was appointed. At his first meeting with the Board
(despite excellent briefing) he made a presentation on the
work of C.V.I. which was ill-prepared and carelessly
presented. The Board was very disappointed with his
performance.
3. The worker was highly critical of the method of
allocation of the Uniform Grant and made serious and
unfounded allegations against staff and Board members.
Subsequent investigations proved that the Uniform Grant was
correctly administered (Details supplied to the Court).
4. The Board tried to assist the worker in every possible
way but was forced to dismiss him in view of both his poor
work performance and inability to maintain harmonious working
relations with staff and Board members.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given careful consideration to all the points made
in extensive submissions from the parties to this dispute. The
Court is satisfied that the trust essential for a satisfactory
Employer/Employee relationship is absent and incapable of
restoration. Taking into account the length of time the employee
was engaged by C.V.I. and the incidents leading up to the
termination of his employment the Court has concluded that he was
not unfairly treated and accordingly the Court does not find his
claim of unfair dismissal sustained.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
25th April, 1994 Evelyn Owens
T.O.D./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.