Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95496 Case Number: LCR15000 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: RYANAIR (Represented by THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions from the parties, the Court is
of the view that the employee was unfairly treated and that the
Company failed to implement its own disciplinary procedures.
The Court accordingly recommends that he be re-employed on
probation for 3 months, and that his permanenet employment be
considered at the end of that period.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95496 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15000
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
RYANAIR
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company in
October, 1994 as a ground handling agent. His duties
included driving (HGV) and the loading and unloading of
passenger baggage. He was initially employed on contract for
the period 25th October, 1994 to 31st March, 1995 but was
retained in employment after the expiry date of the contract.
The worker's employment was terminated on 14th June, 1995.
The worker claimed that he had been unfairly dismissed and
referred the matter to the Labour Court on 11th August, 1995
under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and
agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
The Company's position is that it experienced difficulties
with the worker's attendance, and his work performance in
general. A Labour court hearing took place on 20th November,
1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Management unfairly criticised the worker concerning his
absence from work on 13th June and for failing to report
for the early shift on 14th June, 1995.
2. The worker availed of leave to coincide with his rest
day. Tuesday was his normal day off and it is
reasonable to expect that Tuesday 13th of June, 1995 was
also his day off.
3. The Company's telephone calls to the worker's home
indicating that his starting time on Wednesday 14th
June, 1995 was 14.00 hours is a clear indication that
the Company was aware that he was resting on Tuesday.
4. Four hours into his shift on Wednesday 14th the worker
was approached by the ramp manager. If there had been a
problem of a serious disciplinary nature, it would have
been dealt with at the commencement of his shift.
5. The worker was not allowed to put his side of the story
or to give an explanation. He received no counselling
on the issue, nor was he invited to have a colleague or
representative present at the meeting.
6. The worker was not advised of any right of appeal, nor
did an appeal hearing take place. Justice was not
served in this instance.
7. The worker was unfairly and unreasonably dismissed. In
the circumstances the Union's claim for his
reinstatement without loss of pay is justified.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was a temporary employee of the Company and
spent just 8 months in its employment.
2. While the Company experienced some difficulty with the
worker's performance during his probationary period, it
was decided that he should be given a further
opportunity to improve his performance.
3. Immediately after the completion of his probationary
period, problems arose with regard to the claimant's
attendance, his work performance and his attitude in
general.
4. Of specific concern to the Company was the claimant's
failure to understand that he was not a member of the
management team. He repeatedly changed arrangements
that were none of his concern.
5. The level of absence which occurred in the months
following the completion of the probationary period was
not acceptable.
6. Since no improvement was effected by the claimant
despite the various discussions with him, the Company
was left with no alternative but to dismiss him from his
employment. The claimant was given every opportunity to
perform to the level required by the Company. He failed
to do so, his level of attendance was poor and he
repeatedly behaved in a way that was beyond his
authority. The Company terminated his employment in a
manner in which it believes was fair.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties, the Court is
of the view that the employee was unfairly treated and that the
Company failed to implement its own disciplinary procedures.
The Court accordingly recommends that he be re-employed on
probation for 3 months, and that his permanenet employment be
considered at the end of that period.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
7th December, 1995 Evelyn Owens
F.B./D.T. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.