Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95648 Case Number: AD966 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: NATIONAL YACHT CLUB (Represented by IBEC) - and - A WORKER;CLIFFORD SULLIVAN & COMPANY SOLICITORS |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. DC 91/95 concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
The Court, having considered all the information before it, finds
no grounds to alter the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation.
The Court, therefore, upholds the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation and rejects both appeals.
The Court so decides
Division: Mr Flood Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95648 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD696
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
NATIONAL YACHT CLUB
AND
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY CLIFFORD SULLIVAN & COMPANY SOLICITORS)
SUBJECT:
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. DC
91/95 concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
The worker concerned commenced employment with the National
Yacht Club as senior boatman on 11th April, 1995. His
position was temporary and due to terminate at the end of
September, 1995. There was an initial one month's probation
period after which one month's notice of resignation was
required. The worker's employment was terminated on 11th
May, 1995.
The worker claimed that he had been unfairly dismissed and
referred the matter to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. The Rights Commissioner's
findings and recommendation are as follows:-
"Whilst I accept that the Yacht Club had engaged the
worker on a temporary basis, and on an initial one month
probation, to have dismissed him at 9.00 p.m. on the
very last day of that probation period, without any
prior warning or notice, was blatantly unfair and lends
considerable substance to his grievance.
Consequently, given that the worker had a reasonable
expectation to work until the end of September 1995 and
taking into account the period of notice which the
employer had stipulated would be required had he
resigned, I recommend that the National Yacht Club make
him an ex-gratia lump sum payment of 6 weeks pay, as
compensation, which the claimant should accept in full
and final settlement of his claim."
The worker was named in the recommendation.
The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation was appealed by both
parties to the Labour Court on 16th November, 1995 under
Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The
Labour Court heard the appeal on 23rd January, 1996.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
1. At no time was any complaint made to the worker about his
working or in his abilities in any of the areas, duties,
function and responsibilities which he held and discharged as
senior boatman.
2. The worker is a very experienced boatman and the then head
boatman of the National Yacht Club admitted that the worker
had more experience than the head boatman.
3. The worker was given no reason for his dismissal and when he
asked for a reason the head boatman refused to give one. If
there were grounds for dismissal, they should have been
mentioned to the worker either by way of complaint or warning
during his employment or by way of a stated reason at the
time of his dismissal.
4. It is alleged that the worker had difficulties with certain
operations such as driving at launches, towing boats and
skill at launches. The worker rejects these allegations. No
comments or complaints were made with regard to any of these
operations during the worker's employment.
5. The worker has lost £4,253.33 as a result of the breach of
his terms of employment. There were no grounds given to the
worker for his dismissal either during his employment or at
the time of dismissal. If problems existed as alleged, the
dismissal should have taken place within the probationary
period of one month i.e. by 10th May, 1995 at latest and the
Club was not entitled to effect a dismissal at any time
thereafter.
CLUB'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The worker was employed on a temporary contract until the end
of September, 1995 with the clear understanding by both
parties that there was an initial one month's probation
period. The fact of this case is that by the end of the
probation period the worker was considered to be
unsatisfactory and his employment was terminated in
accordance with the agreement made and in accordance with
normal employment practice.
2. The Club strongly disputes the Rights Commissioner's findings
that there was any unfairness in the action it took.
3. The Club had high hopes for the worker and genuinely hoped
that he would be a success. His failure to meet the
requirements of the post was a serious disappointment to the
head boatman and the management of the Club.
4. The worker was not fully proficient in handling small
delicate pleasure craft of the kind generally in use in the
Club, his experience having been in fishing trawlers. In
addition he appeared to suffer from vertigo and this
represented a safety hazard which the Club could not ignore.
5. The worker's failure to get on with other employees of the
Club represented a serious impediment to him continuing in
employment.
6. The worker is an experienced seaman and he was given a fair
chance to prove himself in his new post. The Club was under
no obligation to provide training or counselling.
7. The Club is a non profit-making organisation with a small
staff of full-time employees and is run mainly through
voluntary efforts and fund-raising by the members themselves.
It is the policy of the Club to value its employees and the
fact that many of the staff are long serving attest to the
fact that the Club is a good and fair employer.
8. There is no basis on which any employer should be required to
pay compensation to any employee who is let go for good
reasons at the end of a probationary period. Such a
precedent would be totally at variance with normal good
employment practices.
DECISION:
The Court, having considered all the information before it, finds
no grounds to alter the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation.
The Court, therefore, upholds the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation and rejects both appeals.
The Court so decides
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
31st January, 1996 Finbarr Flood
F.B./A.K. _______________
Deputy Chairman