Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95195 Case Number: AD9551 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: JAMES MCMAHON (DUBLIN) LIMITED (THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - A WORKER;MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. BC8/95 concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
Having considered the written and oral submissions of both parties
the Court is of the view that the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation should be upheld.
The Court, accordingly, rejects the appeal.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Pierce Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95195 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD5195
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
JAMES McMAHON (DUBLIN) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION)
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No.
BC8/95 concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed as a mill boy by the Company on 24th
July, 1994. The worker claims that he was unfairly dismissed
on 22nd December, 1994.
The dispute was referred to the Rights Commissioner's service
and a hearing took place on 22nd February, 1995. The Rights
Commissioner's recommendation is as follows:-
"In the light of the above I must hold that the dismissal
of the worker on the date in question must be deemed to
be unfair.
I recommend that he be reinstated to his employment on
6th March, 1995 and that a sum of #500 be paid to the
worker by way of compensation for loss of earnings
sustained by him during the period of his
disemployment".
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation).
The Company appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court
on 20th March, 1995, under Section 13(9) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on
22nd May, 1995 (the earliest date suitable to the parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was on 3 months probation, as per Clause 20
of the Company/Union agreement. He had completed 4
months training by the time he was dismissed and was
outside of his probationary period.
2. The worker was given no warning regarding his work or
behaviour during his time with the Company. On a number
of occasions he was asked to do overtime which would
indicate the Company's satisfaction with his work.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was informed that he would serve a 6 month
probationary period. The worker's supervisor had to
speak to him on a number of occasions about his
unsatisfactory performance. The worker was made aware
of the consequences of failing to improve.
2. Having allowed the worker time to demonstrate an
improvement, management decided that he was unsuitable
and gave the worker one week's notice on 25th November,
1994. Following representations by the worker's mother
on his behalf, the Company extended his employment up to
22nd December, 1994.
DECISION:
Having considered the written and oral submissions of both parties
the Court is of the view that the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation should be upheld.
The Court, accordingly, rejects the appeal.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
9th June, 1995 Finbarr Flood
C.O'N./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman