FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MANOR FOODS LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. Manor Foods Limited which was formed in 1997 is involved in the poultry processing industry. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company on six months probation on the 6th of May, 1998. His employment was terminated on the 19th of May, 1998. He claimed that he had been unfairly dismissed and referred the matter to the Labour Court on the 9th of September, 1998, under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Company's position is that the worker was absent from work on two occasions, without permission, and failed to contact the Company regarding his absences, in breach of the Company/Union agreement.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 23rd of November, 1998. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was unfairly dismissed. Management did not act in accordance with the Company/Union agreement in arriving at its decision to terminate his employment.
2. The worker was given no opportunity to familiarise himself with his responsibilities in relation to his attendance at work. On the morning of the 6th of May, 1998 he attended an induction/training talk which lasted approximately 10 minutes.
3. The worker had no previous work experience. In the circumstances it was management's responsibility to advise the worker of his progress, in particular any area which required improvement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. On the 12th of May, 1998, the worker absented himself without permission and did not contact the Company regarding the absence. It is a requirement under Section 12 of the agreement that:-
"An employee absent through illness or without
prior permission must notify the Department manager
directly by personal message or by telephone
before the commencement of his/her shift and, if
possible, within two hours of normal starting time."
The worker was spoken to by management and reminded of Company procedure in this regard.
2. On the 18th of May, 1998, the worker absented himself again without permission and again neglected to contact the Company in regard to the absence. Having regard to the fact that the worker had, within the first two weeks of his employment breached a fundamental aspect of the agreement, the Company exercised its prerogative under the probationary procedure and dismissed him.
3. The Court is asked to uphold the Company's right to determine that an employee within his probationary period is not suitable and that its opinion in this matter is conclusive. The Court is further asked to recognise that sufficient grounds existed in the worker's case such as to allow the Company to form this opinion in regard to him and to terminate his employment.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions made by the parties.
The Court is satisfied that the terms of the agreement in relation to Probationary Period of Employment, as written, have been applied in this case.
However, the Court recommends that in the case of new employees, extra care should be taken at induction time to stress key elements of the agreement in so far as it effects the on-going employment of individuals.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
7th December, 1998______________________
F.B./D.T.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.