Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95594 Case Number: LCR15019 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: KILDARE STREET AND UNIVERSITY CLUB (Represented by THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions both written and
verbal, has come to the view that in all the circumstances the
dismissal of the Union member concerned was not unfair.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that the claim of the Union
fails.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95594 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15019
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: KILDARE STREET AND UNIVERSITY CLUB
(Represented by the Irish Business and Employers' Confederation)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker commenced employment with the Club on the 11th of
March, 1994, in the capacity of kitchen porter. He was dismissed
on the 3rd of March, 1995. The Union claim that his dismissal was
unfair, an allegation that is refuted by the Club on the grounds
that the worker did not show required improvements in various
aspects of his health and performance. The Union referred the
dispute to the Rights Commissioner Service of the Labour Relations
Commission but the Club objected to a Rights Commissioner's
investigation. The Union raised the matter again with the Labour
Relations Commission, but the Club declined an invitation to attend
a conciliation conference. The dispute was referred by the Union
to the Labour Court, on the 16th of October, 1995, in accordance
with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The
Court carried out its investigation into the dispute on the 20th
November, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was employed on probation of 6 months, on the
11th March, 1994. This probation was extended for 3
months and the worker was dismissed 2 months subsequent
to the end of the 3 months. The Club had ample time to
assess the suitability of the worker during the 6 month
probation period.
2. He was dismissed only 1 week short of the 12 months'
service which would have entitled him to take a case
under the Unfair Dismissals Act. This appears to be more
than just a coincidence.
3. The worker does not recall having been spoken to by the
catering manager regarding the performance of his
duties. He always did what was required of him, even if
he had to stay behind.
4. Regarding the health issue raised by the Company in its
letter of 5th August, 1994, the worker had attended to
the condition but the medication he was using had become
obsolete.
CLUB'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claimant was initially employed on a six months
probationary period. The Club reserved the right to
terminate employment at the expiry of this period. It
could simply have done so. It did not. Instead the
Club extended the probationary period in order to allow
the claimant to address a number of difficulties with
various aspects of his health and with the performance
of his duties.
2. The catering manager, to whom the claimant reported, met
with the claimant frequently in order to provide
assistance in the areas of concern and, although the
claimant was requested to liaise with the catering
manager each Friday, the catering manager always had to
seek the claimant out.
3. The claimant was given every assistance with his
difficulties and every opportunity to improve. No
improvement occurred.
4. The Club sent the claimant to a doctor, as its expense,
in order to ascertain if there was any medical reason
for his failure to address his various health problems
and his failure to do his work. The medical report
indicated that there were health difficulties (details
supplied).
5. At this stage the claimant was nearly a year with the
Club. The Club could not enter a permanent relationship
with an individual who could not or would not bring
about the improvements required.
6. The Club did not take the decision to dismiss the worker
lightly. It was simply left with no alternative having
tried everything else within its power.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions both written and
verbal, has come to the view that in all the circumstances the
dismissal of the Union member concerned was not unfair.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that the claim of the Union
fails.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
14th December, 1995 -------------------
M.K./U.S. Chairman
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.