FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : PRECAST PRODUCTS (REPRESENTED BY BRIAN FLYNN & ASSOCIATES) - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGrath Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned is a qualified Sheet Metal Worker who was offered a permanent position with the company in August, 1995. He commenced a probationary period of one month on 11th September, 1995. The Union claims that the worker was informed on 1st December, 1995 that his employment was to be terminated as his work was not up to standard. The Union further claims that Management refused to discuss the matter with either the worker concerned or with his trade union representative.
The Company refused to attend a Rights Commissioner's hearing or to avail of the conciliation services of the Labour Relations Commission. The Union referred the claim of unfair dismissal to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 on 29th February, 1996, and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute in Waterford on 11th December, 1996, the earliest date suitable to both parties. The Company, however, did not attend the hearing.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker concerned was refused a fair hearing and denied any opportunity to put his case. The minimum standards of fair procedures or codes of practice were not implemented by the Company.
2. The worker achieved the distinction of third best apprentice in Ireland and is more than reasonably competent in his work. He did not act in any negligent way. No reasonable criteria was used to determine standards of work and the worker never received a verbal or written warning.
3. The Employer has refused to confirm in writing the reason for the worker's dismissal. The Union has grounds to believe that the Employer has acted in a manner which has affected the worker's future employment prospects. The worker has suffered substantial financial losses as a result of his dismissal and his reputation has been brought into disrepute. He is entitled to be compensated for his losses and to an appropriate reference from the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered all of the views expressed by the claimant in his oral and written submissions. The Employer chose not to attend the Court.
The Court also noted that the Company also chose not to attend any of the other institutions established for the resolution of disputes.
Given all of the circumstances and the failure of the Company to adhere to normal industrial relations practices in the manner in which the claimant was dismissed the Court finds the employee was unfairly dismissed.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that he be paid compensation in the amount of £1,000 and that he be provided with a suitable reference as soon as possible.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
23rd December, 1996______________________
D.G./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.