Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94512 Case Number: LCR14712 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: MERIDAN VAT PROCESSING - and - A WORKER |
Alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
4. Having considered the submissions from the Company and the
letter of claim presented by the claimant, who indicated he was
unable to attend the hearing, the Court has concluded that he was
badly treated outside his probationary period by the Company and,
accordingly, the Court recommends that he be paid compensation of
a sum of #700.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94512 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14712
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: MERIDAN VAT PROCESSING
(Represented by Irish Business and Economic Confederation)
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The worker commenced employment with the Company on 26th
May, 1993. In August, 1993, the worker was offered permanent
employment, subject to successfully completing a probationary
period which would be at end of November, 1993.
2. The worker's appraisal did not take place until January,
1994. At that stage he was dismissed by the Company. The
worker claims that he was unfairly dismissed. He was
employed by the Company for eight months and claims that he
was never given any indication of the Company's
dissatisfaction with his work. In December, 1993, he
received a letter from the Managing Director thanking him for
his co-operation and commitment.
3. The worker claims that the appraisal was inaccurate and
that he was not given adequate time to respond to his
appraiser's evaluation of him which led to his dismissal.
This is contrary to his terms of employment (details supplied
to the Court). The worker referred the dispute to the Labour
Court on 10th October, 1994, under Section 20(1), Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on
30th January, 1995, (the earliest date suitable to the
parties). The worker did not attend the hearing.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company was set up in April, 1993, and operates in a
very competitive industry. By May, 1993, 190 workers were
employed, mostly on short-time contracts. A large number
left in July, 1993. At this stage the Company was still in a
learning process.
2. The Company has two deadlines each year - May/June and
November/December. The worker's probationary period was due
to end in November, 1993, but because of the deadline was put
back until January, 1994, when his appraisal took place. His
probationary review was unsatisfactory. The Company was also
redefining staffing requirements at this time. It was
decided to terminate the worker's contract. His probationary
period had not been completed at the time. The worker did
not appeal the decision to the Managing Director.
RECOMMENDATION:
4. Having considered the submissions from the Company and the
letter of claim presented by the claimant, who indicated he was
unable to attend the hearing, the Court has concluded that he was
badly treated outside his probationary period by the Company and,
accordingly, the Court recommends that he be paid compensation of
a sum of #700.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
21st March, 1995 ----------------
C O'N/U.S. Chairman
NOTE:
ENQUIRIES CONCERNING THIS RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO
MR CIARAN O'NEILL, COURT SECRETARY.