Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94511 Case Number: LCR14620 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: SILVERCREST FOODS - and - A WORKER;COOLOCK COMMUNITY LAW CENTRE |
Termination of employment.
Recommendation:
The Court is satisfied that the Company acted within its rights,
given the signed document in relation to the probationary period.
However, the Court is concerned that the employer chose not to
attend the hearing and did not supply any further information to
the Court in regard to the reasons for its dismissal of the
claimant, other than that given to the claimant by his supervisor
at the time of his dismissal i.e. "that he was unsuitable". In
those circumstances the Court recommends that the claimant be paid
an additional week's payment in settlement of his claim.
Division: Mr Flood Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94511 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14620
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
SILVERCREST FOODS
AND
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY COOLOCK COMMUNITY LAW CENTRE)
SUBJECT:
1. Termination of employment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker had contacted the Company on a number of
occasions, seeking employment. He attended an interview on
14th July, 1994, which was conducted by the manager and
assistant manager. He was successful in the interview and
was asked to start work on 15th July, 1994 on a wage of #135
per week. His working hours were 7.45 a.m. to 4.30 p.m.
On a request from his supervisor he agreed to work from
6.30 a.m. to 4.30 p.m. from 18th July, 1994. He was engaged
to place meat on a conveyor belt. On 24th July, 1994, he was
told by his supervisor that he was to be let go as he was
unsuitable for the job. The Company claims that it was
within its rights, under the Company's Works Rules and
Conditions of Employment, which the worker signed, to dismiss
the worker as he was on probation.
The worker claimed that he was unfairly dismissed and the
dispute was referred by the Coolock Community Law Centre to
the Labour Court on 10th October, 1994, under Section 20(1)
of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court
hearing took place on 17th November, 1994. The Company did
not attend the hearing.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. At the interview, the Company manager stated that the
worker had good experience and would start on a salary
of #135 per week instead the normal #110. The worker
was promised a rise after six weeks and the possibility
of a supervisor's job.
2. The worker got on well with staff and received no
complaints from his supervisor. He was allocated a
locker for his belongings on 23rd July, 1994. He was
not given any opportunity to discuss his dismissal with
the manager.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is satisfied that the Company acted within its rights,
given the signed document in relation to the probationary period.
However, the Court is concerned that the employer chose not to
attend the hearing and did not supply any further information to
the Court in regard to the reasons for its dismissal of the
claimant, other than that given to the claimant by his supervisor
at the time of his dismissal i.e. "that he was unsuitable". In
those circumstances the Court recommends that the claimant be paid
an additional week's payment in settlement of his claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
6th December, 1994 Finbarr Flood
C.O'N./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.