FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : SHAMROCK FOODS LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Owens Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. Shamrock Foods Limited is a warehouse and distribution Company and is part of the I.A.W.S. Group.
The Union claims that one of its members was unfairly dismissed by the Company. It claims that the worker concerned came to the Company with a very good reference from his previous employer and was informed at interview that he was the type of person they were looking for. He commenced employment with the Company on the 20th September, 1996.
In October, 1996 the Union claims that the worker was left short in his bonus and overtime payments which were due to him. He also claims that he was due some payment for operating the "fork-lift" which he never received. Consequently, he had a number of arguments with the warehouse manager over these discrepancies. He was dismissed by the Company on the 29th November, 1997.
The Company rejects the claim that the worker was unfairly dismissed. It claims that the worker was dismissed in accordance with the provisions of his contract of employment. The worker was unable to reach the standards required by the Company.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 13th June, 1997, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court investigated the dispute on the 7th October, 1997.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was unfairly treated by the Company. He did not received a written or a verbal warning regarding his work.
2. The worker always gave sufficient notice to the Company when he was unavailable for overtime.
3. The attitude of the warehouse manager was dogmatic and provocative and caused a lot of the arguments on the shop floor.
4. The worker was deeply shocked and distressed by the decision to dismiss him.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was dismissed in accordance with the probationary clause in his contract of employment.
2. The worker refused to carry out instructions given by management on a number of occasions.
3. The worker indicated to management that he was not interested in doing any jobs where "bonus" could not be earned.
4. When requested by Security Personnel to move his car to a different location he questioned the person's authority to make such a request.
5. The worker was verbally warned on a number of occasions regarding his attitude and behaviour towards management.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having examined the claimant's contract the Court is satisfied that the Company acted within the terms and accordingly the Court does not recommend in favour of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
22nd October, 1997______________________
L.W./S.G.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.