FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : LAVANAGH CENTRE (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Owens Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Lavanagh Centre, which is located in Ballintemple, Cork, provides clerical, educational and training services for 820 physically disabled children and adults. (A full list of services was supplied to the Court).
The worker commenced employment with the Centre, following an interview, in November, 1996. He had previously been registered with FAS. His duties included working with children and fund raising. Three weeks after starting, the director of the Centre advised the worker that she had received an anonymous phone call, alleging that the worker had served a jail sentence. The worker admitted that he had served three years in jail for his political affiliation (alleged IRA membership, which the worker denied). The director informed the worker that, following the implementation of the 1991 Child Care Act, it was not the policy of the Centre to employ staff with prison records. As a result, the worker was dismissed.
Following the Centre's refusal to attend a Rights Commissioner's hearing, the Union referred the case to the Labour Court on 24th February, 1997, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 30th July, 1997, in Tralee. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker's job was for a three year period under the job initiative scheme. No probationary period was stated and no conditions of employment were outlined.
2. The Centre admits that the worker was excellent at his duties. When queried about the anonymous phone call, the worker willingly explained the situation and told management that a similar incident had occurred at a previous job. Management admitted that it was their fault that the worker had not been questioned about a previous prison sentence at his interview.
3. The worker was unfairly dismissed. The reference to dismissal under the Child Protection Act has cast a slur on his reputation. He also lost Christmas bonus payments as a result of the dismissal.
CENTRE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was employed as a temporary FAS employee for twelve months, with a probationary period of three months. All full time employees at the Centre are screened by the Garda Commissioner for convictions or prison records prior to appointment. Because the worker was a temporary FAS employee he had not been screened and, as a result, was appointed to the job. The worker did not mention at his interview that he had a prison record. The Centre was left with no option but to dismiss him and has enforced its policy on a number of previous occasions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties, the Court is satisfied that the reason the claimant was dismissed was as a result of an omission at interview stage, and was no reflection on the manner in which he carried out his duties.
The Court notes that a three month probation clause was in operation.
In the circumstances, the Court recommends that he be paid an ex-gratia sum of £300 in compensation for the obvious distress he incurred.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
22nd August, 1997______________________
C.O'N./D.T.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.