Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94492 Case Number: LCR14623 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: COLAS BUILDING PRODUCTS LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Alleged Unfair Dismissal.
Recommendation:
The Court has fully considered the written submissions made by the
parties and the oral views of the claimant.
From the information available to the Court the reasons why the
employee was dismissed are not sustained.
At no time were any of these issues raised with him and contrary
to views expressed he was praised by his immediate supervisor.
The Court considers that their was an obligation on management to
bring any failings which manifested themselves during the
claimant's probationary period to his attention with a view to
their being corrected or advising him of the consequences. From
the evidence put forward this was not done.
Further, certain of the leave of absence complained of appears
to have been taken with the approval of management.
In all the circumstances whilst the Court finds the manner in
which the Company terminated the claimant's employment left a lot
to be desired he was dismissed during his period of probation and
accordingly the Court does not consider compensation appropriate.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94492 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14623
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
COLAS BUILDING PRODUCTS LIMITED
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged Unfair Dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed by the Company on a 6 month
probationary trial period. During this time the Company
alleged that he was absent from work for a total of 16 days.
In addition, the Company state that no sick notes were
submitted by the worker to cover the absences.
The worker was also assessed by the Irish School of Motoring
for his ability to drive a fork-lift. Following the
assessment it was recommended that a further review of his
fork-lift skills be undertaken at some future date. As a
result of further illness the review was never undertaken.
The worker was dismissed by the Company on 14th July, 1994.
The worker referred his dispute to the Rights Commissioner's
Service but the Company objected to a Rights Commissioner
hearing. The worker referred the dispute under Section 20(1)
of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 to the Labour Court and
agreed to be bound by the decision of the Court. The Court
investigated the dispute on the 11th November, 1994.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was absent for 8 days, not 16 days as claimed
by the Company. Also, the worker was informed that it
was not necessary to produce a certificate where sick
leave taken was less than 2 days.
2. When asked if he could attend the Company's half yearly
stocktake the worker enquired if his attendance was
necessary as he had family arrangements made for that
day. Approval for his absenteeism on that day was
granted.
3. Some safety faults in the worker's fork-lift test were
indicated by the Irish School of Motoring and it was
suggested that a further review was necessary. However,
when this renewal date was arranged the worker was on
annual leave.
4. With regard to his attitude to work, the worker was
praised by the Company on several occasions.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was employed for a 6 month probationary
period. During this time he had a high rate of
absenteeism. He also failed to obtain a Certificate of
Competence to operate the fork-lift.
2. The warehouse manager, having arranged to pick the
worker up at an agreed time had to cancel the
arrangement due to being delayed by him on a number of
occasions.
3. The worker's unreliability was highlighted when he
failed to report for the Company's half yearly
stocktake. The worker's overall general attendance,
diligence and attitude precluded the Company from
offering him a permanent position with the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has fully considered the written submissions made by the
parties and the oral views of the claimant.
From the information available to the Court the reasons why the
employee was dismissed are not sustained.
At no time were any of these issues raised with him and contrary
to views expressed he was praised by his immediate supervisor.
The Court considers that their was an obligation on management to
bring any failings which manifested themselves during the
claimant's probationary period to his attention with a view to
their being corrected or advising him of the consequences. From
the evidence put forward this was not done.
Further, certain of the leave of absence complained of appears
to have been taken with the approval of management.
In all the circumstances whilst the Court finds the manner in
which the Company terminated the claimant's employment left a lot
to be desired he was dismissed during his period of probation and
accordingly the Court does not consider compensation appropriate.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
7th December, 1994 Tom McGrath
L.W./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.