Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95503 Case Number: LCR14979 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: TACK PACKAGING LIMITED (Represented by THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE |
Dispute concerning the conditions of employment/dismissal of a worker.
Recommendation:
The Court having considered all of the views expressed by the
parties finds that, given the circumstances, the employer in
terminating the employment of the claimant did not act
unreasonably.
The Court notes that the employer will pay to the claimant the
appropriate mileage allowance as calculated by reference to the
Public Service mileage allowances.
The Court takes the view that the employee should have been paid
at the £14,500 per annum rate and recommends that any payments
made to the claimant be adjusted accordingly.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Pierce Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95503 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14979
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
TACK PACKAGING LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the conditions of employment/dismissal of
a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company as
a service engineer on the 27th May,1995. He was on a six
months probationary period. The Company terminated the
worker's employment on the 27th June, 1995 on the grounds
that he was unsuitable for the post. The Union claimed that
his dismissal was unfair and that he did not receive a
written contract of employment. Management rejected the
claim. The Union sought to refer the dispute to a Rights
Commissioner for investigation and recommendation but the
Company objected to such an investigation. On the 29th
August, 1995 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 15th November,
1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker submitted a comprehensive Curriculum Vitae at
interview outlining his qualifications and experience.
The Company was well aware of his abilities and
electrical skills when offering him the position. It is
the Company's responsibility to ensure that the worker
it is employing is competent and suitable.
2. The Company verbally agreed to pay the worker a salary
of £14,500 and the appropriate Civil Service mileage
rates. The Company paid the worker £14,000 and the
mileage paid was substantially below the agreed figure.
3. On the 12th June, there were difficulties over the
wiring of an electrical motor and the following day the
manager stated that he needed an electrician for the
job.
4. The worker was given one months notice on 23rd June. He
was unfairly treated in that he did not receive a
written contract of employment, the correct salary or
the appropriate mileage. He left a position to take up
the post and is now unemployed. He seeks appropriate
compensation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker's Curriculum Vitae stated and he confirmed at
interview that he had electrical experience and was
competent in 'single and three' phase electrical wiring.
Very early on in the employment it became apparent
that the worker was most unsatisfactory in a number of
aspects of the work and had very little electrical
competence (details supplied to the Court).
2. The worker was advised at interview that he would be
visiting customers and as such representing the Company.
He was expected to be neat, clean and tidy. On three
occasions he was warned about his untidy appearance.
The worker also failed to contact the Company to receive
urgent messages.
3. It was made abundantly clear to the worker at interview
that he was employed on a six months trial basis and
subject to this he would be offered a permanent
contract. The salary agreed was £14,000 and the Company
agreed to pay Civil Service mileage rates.
4. At interview the worker was told in detail about the job
on offer and the skills required. He presented himself
as having those skills. This was not the case. In an
effort to assist the worker find alternative employment
the Company agreed to extend his notice. During this
time he only carried out mechanical work. The worker
was unsuitable for the post of service engineer. The
Company was left with no alternative but to dismiss him.
It is a Company's right to terminate a worker's
employment during probation.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court having considered all of the views expressed by the
parties finds that, given the circumstances, the employer in
terminating the employment of the claimant did not act
unreasonably.
The Court notes that the employer will pay to the claimant the
appropriate mileage allowance as calculated by reference to the
Public Service mileage allowances.
The Court takes the view that the employee should have been paid
at the £14,500 per annum rate and recommends that any payments
made to the claimant be adjusted accordingly.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
28th November, 1995 Tom McGrath
T.O'D./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.