Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95672 Case Number: LCR15070 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: IRISH OSTOMY PRODUCTS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
Recommendation:
As the Company did not attend the hearing, the only evidence
before the Court was that of the claimant.
The claimant served a six-month trial which presumably was
satisfactory as he was confirmed in his post. During the period
and subsequently, no indication of dissatisfaction with his
performance was given by the Company.
Indeed, it would appear from the evidence before the Court that
the only reason for his dismissal was the Company's decision to
employ someone at a lower rate of pay for his job.
The manner and timing of his dismissal the Court finds totally
unacceptable.
The Court finds that the claimant's dismissal was unfair and
recommends that the Company pay the claimant £1,000 in
compensation. The Court further recommends that the Company
provide the claimant with a satisfactory reference.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95672 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15070
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
IRISH OSTOMY PRODUCTS LIMITED
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the distribution of health care
and pharmaceutical products and employs 18 workers. The
worker concerned commenced employment on the 19th December,
1994. He was on six months probation, completed in June,
1995. The worker was dismissed on the 20th October, 1995.
He received his statutory entitlements. He claimed that the
dismissal was unfair and sought to refer the dispute to a
Rights Commissioner for investigation. The Company objected
to such an investigation. On the 24th November, 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 17th January, 1996. The Company declined an
invitation to attend the hearing.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. A worker cannot be deprived of employment unless there
are substantial grounds for dismissal. The principle of
fair procedures and natural justice must apply. A
worker must be informed of the reasons for dismissal and
given the opportunity of rebuttal irrespective of the
length of service. It is particularly true in the
present claim where a period of probation was
successfully completed.
2. The worker concerned was competent, performed his duties
efficiently and successfully completed probation. He
has an exemplary employment record and first class
references from various employments pertaining to work
similar to that which he undertook for the Company.
3. The Company, in the week subsequent to the worker's
dismissal, employed two other young employees.
4. The manner in which the dismissal was implemented will
impact adversely on the worker's future employment
prospects.
5. The Union contends that the only reason for the worker's
dismissal was that the Company wished to save money by
employing workers at lower rates of pay.
6. The worker concerned has been treated in a most unjust
and arbitrary fashion by being unfairly dismissed. He
seeks appropriate compensation.
RECOMMENDATION:
As the Company did not attend the hearing, the only evidence
before the Court was that of the claimant.
The claimant served a six-month trial which presumably was
satisfactory as he was confirmed in his post. During the period
and subsequently, no indication of dissatisfaction with his
performance was given by the Company.
Indeed, it would appear from the evidence before the Court that
the only reason for his dismissal was the Company's decision to
employ someone at a lower rate of pay for his job.
The manner and timing of his dismissal the Court finds totally
unacceptable.
The Court finds that the claimant's dismissal was unfair and
recommends that the Company pay the claimant £1,000 in
compensation. The Court further recommends that the Company
provide the claimant with a satisfactory reference.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
31st January, 1996 Finbarr Flood
T.O'D./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.