FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : OLHAUSEN LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY AIDAN D. COLLINS & COMPANY, SOLICITORS) - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Owens Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was employed as a cleaner on a 'back to work' scheme on the 11th of August, 1997. The worker claims that he was dismissed without warning on the 29th of February, 1998, because "he did not fit in with the team". The Company states that his dismissal was justified as he was unsuitable for the position.
The worker referred a claim of unfair dismissal to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on the 29th of May, 1998.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Prior to August, 1997, the claimant worked for the Company on a casual basis. He was then interviewed and was employed full-time by the Company, who did not appraise him of any probationary period. He did not receive a contract of employment.
2. The claimant carried out his duties diligently and did additional work such as unloading lorries and receiving deliveries. The Company also paid him a £50 bonus for extra work related to a health inspection.
3. The worker did not receive a verbal or written warning from the Company. On the day of his dismissal he was simply told that "he did not fit in with the team". The worker did not smoke on the premises but did smoke outside with many other employees. No other member of staff was dismissed.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. If the worker concerned was employed it was on a trial basis only. He was not employed long enough to confer on him any statutory rights to compensation.
2. The claimant's dismissal was justified as he was unsuitable for the position held, was unable to work on his own initiative and was consistently in breach of regulations, both statutory and otherwise, governing the operation of the Company's food processing business.
3. The claimant was not dismissed for smoking outside the Company's premises, although this is not permitted. The claimant was verbally warned that he was not carrying out his duties satisfactorily and was told to improve. As his work continued to deteriorate he was dismissed.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the evidence submitted, the Court is satisfied that the claimant was unfairly treated. The Court, accordingly, recommends that he be issued with a suitable reference and be paid £700 in compensation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
12th June, 1998______________________
D.G./U.S.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.