Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95517 Case Number: LCR14942 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: FORBAIRT - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE |
Dispute concerning the non-renewal of a worker's contract.
Recommendation:
The Court finds in this case that throughout the exercise of his
contract the employee had been given very positive assessments of
his performance.
In discussions his supervisor had clearly indicated to the
claimant and his colleagues that, subject to performance and
funding they could expect to be continued for a further contract.
The Court notes that with the exception of the claimant all of the
other workers received further contracts.
The Court finds no reasonable grounds have been put forward to
show that the claimant's performance was not satisfactory.
Accordingly the Court finds it unreasonable that the claimant's
contract was not renewed and further finds the manner in which the
termination was effected to be contrary to what would have been
expected from any reasonable employer.
The court notes that a post will require to be filled in the
region and accordingly the Court recommends that the contract of
the claimant be renewed.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Pierce Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95517 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14942
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
FORBAIRT
AND
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the non-renewal of a worker's contract.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment on the 18th
October, 1993 as a technology transfer executive. He was on
a two year contract. The worker was originally employed by
Eolas which in 1994 became part of FORFAS. He was designated
to serve in Forbairt and is based in the Waterford Regional
Office. The worker reported to the Regional Director for the
South East Region. On the 4th July, 1995 the worker received
a letter from management stating that his contract would no
be renewed after 17th October, 1995. The Union contends that
the worker was guaranteed a further two year contract and
that he was unfairly treated. Management rejected the claim.
The Union sought to refer the dispute to a Rights
Commissioner for investigation and recommendation but the
Authority objected to such an investigation. On the 6th
September, 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 Courts recommendation.
The Court investigated the dispute on the 9th October, 1995.
A letter recommendation was issued on the 16th October, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker concerned was informed by management that the
post was for four years i.e. two contracts of two years
duration. The second contract depended on satisfactory
performance and E.U. funding. The worker's performance
was satisfactory and Forbairt received E.U. funding.
Other workers were given similar contracts and some were
subsequently appointed to permanent posts. The worker
concerned was the only one not appointed for four years.
2. The worker was given no explanation as to why his
contract would not be renewed. All the indications from
management were that the worker was performing his
duties competently and efficiently. Many of his
agreements were delivered ahead of the time taken by some
other executives. The worker is entitled to know why
management is withdrawing the second contract. The
Company has refused to use proper procedure and give
reasons for their decisions.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The programme to which the worker was appointed has been
modified to better address the goals of Forbarit. Early
in 1995 the Regional Director drew the worker's
attention to his work performance and pointed out to him
that his skills were not compatible with the post as
recently defined.
2. The worker was appointed to a two year contract. The
Company fulfilled its contractual obligations to him and
there is no onus on management to offer the worker a
second contract. It is fundamental to the Forbarit use
of term contracts that decisions, as to whether or not
to offer a first or second contract, remain the
prerogative of management.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court finds in this case that throughout the exercise of his
contract the employee had been given very positive assessments of
his performance.
In discussions his supervisor had clearly indicated to the
claimant and his colleagues that, subject to performance and
funding they could expect to be continued for a further contract.
The Court notes that with the exception of the claimant all of the
other workers received further contracts.
The Court finds no reasonable grounds have been put forward to
show that the claimant's performance was not satisfactory.
Accordingly the Court finds it unreasonable that the claimant's
contract was not renewed and further finds the manner in which the
termination was effected to be contrary to what would have been
expected from any reasonable employer.
The court notes that a post will require to be filled in the
region and accordingly the Court recommends that the contract of
the claimant be renewed.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
23rd October, 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.