FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : AERO-CHEM PRODUCTS LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY SMALL FIRMS ASSOCIATION - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company was established in October, 1994 and is engaged in the supply of quality maintenance and hygiene products. It employs 4 people.
The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company on 27th May, 1996 as a warehouse/office supervisor. His employment was terminated on 7th June 1996. The worker claimed that he had been unfairly dismissed and referred the matter to the Labour Court on 30th September, 1996 under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 13th November, 1996. An invitation to attend a Rights Commissioner's hearing was declined by the Company.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker attended two interviews at which he satisfied the Company in relation to his work experience and suitability for the job. He resigned from permanent employment to take up his new position but was afforded little opportunity to settle into the job.
2. The worker received no complaints regarding his work performance. His dismissal after eight days without an adequate explanation caused him considerable shock and embarrassment. Since his dismissal he has been unable to secure permanent employment. The treatment meted out to the worker by management was not justified.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. From the commencement of the worker's employment his job performance was unsatisfactory. His handwriting and spelling were poor and his computer knowledge was inadequate.
2. The worker was requested to use a tape gun for packing/sealing cartons but declined to use it arguing that it was less effective than his teeth and hands. The end result was unprofessional.
3. It was clear from the early stages of the worker's employment that the trust, responsibility and confidence that the Company needed to place him in were not going to be met. A company of Aero-Chem's nature and size, working within tight financial constraints, needs to have employees working without supervision. The worker was not suited for the position he claimed he could handle with confidence. It left the Company with no alternative but to terminate his employment.
RECOMMENDATION:
On the basis of the evidence submitted at the hearing the Court has concluded that the trial period given to the claimant was too short lived. The Court accordingly recommends that the claimant be paid an ex-gratia sum of £300.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
22nd November, 1996______________________
F.B./D.T.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.