FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : NEC SEMICONDUCTORS (IRELAND) LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation ST97/96.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker commenced employment with the Company on the 2nd September, 1995 until 27th February, 1996 when he was dismissed following a review of his probationary period.
The Company claims that the worker's attendance and disciplinary records were not up to the required standard and it was decided that he had failed to pass his probationary period of employment and was dismissed.
The Union claims that the worker reported for duty on the night shift on the 8th February, 1996. His machine was not working. He sought the assistance of the Shift Setter who made it functional. It is alleged by the Company that the worker used abusive language and was insubordinate to his supervisor. The worker denies the allegations.
The worker appealed the dismissal under an internal procedures agreement. The dismissal was upheld by the Operations Manager and the Personnel Director.
The dispute was then referred to a Rights Commissioner. The Rights Commissioner investigated the dispute on the 26th August, 1996 and in his Recommendation ST97/96 recommended:-
" I believe that the Company has a right to make a complete review of
an employee's performance at a probationary review. In this instance I
cannot find that the Company has acted incorrectly or unfairly. I
recommend that the Union accepts that the dismissal of the worker was
not unfair".
The Union appealed the recommendation on the 20th September, 1996. The Court heard the appeal on the 11th November, 1996 under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker denies that he was abusive or insubordinate to his supervisor.
2. He also refutes the allegations that he refused to carryout legitimate work- related instructions.
3. When the worker discovered his machine was not functioning he sought the assistance of the Shift Setter to fix it. He rejects the allegations that he was abusive .
4. The Union seeks the re-instatement of the worker.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company reviewed the worker's employment record and decided that it was not up to the standard required by the Company.
2. It is Company policy to review all staff who are on probation and as a result found that the worker was not suitable.
3. The worker was suspended for being insubordinate and for using abusive language to his supervisor.
4. The worker was issued with a number of warnings regarding his unauthorised absences from work.
DECISION:
The Court having fully considered all of the views as expressed by the parties in their oral and written submissions is not satisfied at the manner in which the procedures were applied in this case.
Accordingly it is the decision of the Court that the claimant be reinstated, that the period out of work be considered as a suspension and that he be placed on probation for a period of six months.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
26th November, 1996______________________
L.W./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.