FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : LEINSTER WAREHOUSING AND DISTRIBUTION LIMITED - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY NEIL MCNEILS SOLICITOR) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company commenced trading in 1992. It is involved in warehousing and general distribution and employs approximately fifty people.
The worker commenced employment in June, 1997 as a general operative and was dismissed in February, 1998. The Company claims that the worker was on probation and was dismissed because he was unsuitable.
The worker claims that he was unfairly dismissed. He states that he was not given either a written or verbal warning concerning his work performance.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court, on the 10th February, 1998, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The worker agreed to be bound by the Recommendation of the Court. The Court carried out its investigation on the 11th June, 1998.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker did not receive either a written or verbal warning concerning his work performance and claims that he has been unfairly dismissed.
2. The worker was informed by management that he was a permanent member of staff.
3. The worker was not given the chance to defend himself against the allegations made by the Company.
4. The worker always performed his duties to the best of his abilities and was surprised when his employment was terminated.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is Company policy that all staff are subject to the completion of a satisfactory probationary period.
2. The worker was treated no differently to other employees on probation in the Company.
3. The worker was dismissed because he did not reach the standard required by the Company.
4. The Company rejects the claim that the worker was unfairly dismissed.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court is satisfied that the decision to dismiss the claimant was taken without informing him of the allegations which influenced that decision and without affording him any opportunity to respond to those allegations. In those circumstances the Company could not have reasonably concluded that the claimant was guilty of misconduct such as to justify dismissal.
The Court therefore finds that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. It recommends that he be paid compensation in an amount equal to four weeks gross pay and provided with a suitable reference.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
23rd June, 1998______________________
L.W./S.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.