Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95523 Case Number: LCR15133 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: PRESSCUT METALS (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Dispute concerning the alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
Recommendation:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions made by the
parties. Taking into account all the circumstances of this case
the Court finds that the manner of dismissal of the claimant was
unfair.
The Court recommends that the Employer pay the Claimant a sum of
money equal to one month's gross salary in full and final
settlement of this claim.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95523 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15133
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
PRESSCUT METALS (IRELAND) LIMITED
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company as
a workshop manager on the 5th April, 1995. He received a
written contract of employment. The worker was dismissed on
the 6th July, 1995. He claimed that his dismissal was unfair
and sought to refer the dispute to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. The Company objected to
such an investigation. On the 5th September, 1995 the worker
referred the dispute to the Labour Court under Section 20(1)
of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound
by the Court's recommendation. A Court hearing was held on
the 25th March 1996 (the earliest date suitable to the
parties).
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker left a secure position to take up employment
with the Company. The job offer and conditions of
employment were confirmed in writing. From the
commencement of his employment the worker found that the
factory was not operating at the level outlined to him
at interviews. There were only three staff on the
payroll. Technical assistance was minimal and received
from casual and untrained labour. On the job training
consisted of a two-day visit to the parent plant in
Scotland. At interview the worker was given to
understand that training would be more comprehensive.
2. The employee worked long hours, supplied his own tools
and also used his own transport to the benefit of the
Company.
3. On a number of occasions the worker sought additional
data regarding the details of technical drawings used in
the performance of his duties. These were not
forthcoming. As a result work was delayed.
4. On the 6th July 1995 the worker was informed by
Management that 'he should leave the premises and never
return'. He received no notice. He got no satisfactory
explanation, either verbally or in writing. The worker
was arbitrarily and unfairly dismissed. He seeks
appropriate compensation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claimant was selected for the post of Production
Manager following a series of interviews. He was chosen
for the job based on the information contained in his
Curriculum Vitae and interviews. The worker was
employed on a trial basis.
2. The Company proceeded to undertake the training of the
Worker both locally and in Scotland. Following the
initial training it became obvious to Management that
the worker was experiencing significant difficulties.
He was given further training.
3. During this time the Company obtained a substantial
contract. It became apparent that the worker was not
capable of handling the contract. Material was cut to
the wrong size and eventually the contract had to be
finished at the parent plant in Scotland.
4. The Company contends that the worker concealed
information in relation to his abilities with regard to
the machinery, its operating systems/maintenance
requirements; and the progress of the particular order
(completed in Scotland). The Company was in the process
of obtaining another order and installing further
machinery. It formed the opinion that the worker was
not capable of fulfilling his duties properly and
efficiently. Management was left with no alternative
but to dismiss the worker.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions made by the
parties. Taking into account all the circumstances of this case
the Court finds that the manner of dismissal of the claimant was
unfair.
The Court recommends that the Employer pay the Claimant a sum of
money equal to one month's gross salary in full and final
settlement of this claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
11 April, 1996 Finbarr Flood
T.O.D./S.G. ________________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.