FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ATLAS PRINT & PACKAGING - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Alleged Unfair Dismissal
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a worker who was employed by the Company from the 14th of November, 1997, in the capacity of van driver, until his dismissal on the 26th of June, 1998. The worker claims that his dismissal was unfair. The Company's position is that the worker's performance had fallen short of the standard required in the latter stages of his employment and, consequently, the Company had no alternative but to dismiss him. The worker referred the matter to the Labour Court, on the 26th August, 1998, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court carried out its investigation on the 13th August, 1998.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The worker left a position with a security company to take up employment with the Company. He was very happy in his new post and committed to his work, putting in long hours and even working occasional Sundays without claiming overtime. After 7 months in the job, the worker was ill and his wife telephoned the Company and advised a colleague of his illness. The worker attended his doctor and had a sick-cert forwarded to the employer. However, the employer came to the worker's home and removed the Company van. On the worker's return to work he was given one week's notice of his dismissal. The reason given for the dismissal was that the worker had made a number of mistakes during the course of his work. He had been given no warning about his performance.
2. One mistake which had been made by the worker, when he failed to make a delivery due to his belief that the premises would be closed by the time he would have arrived, was rectified the following morning when he made the delivery. The second mistake, when a customer was left one box short, was also rectified subsequently. The worker's manager was aware of these mistakes and he did not give the worker a telling off or any form of warning.
3. The worker did not threaten other members of staff nor was he guilty of smoking when in bakeries, as alleged.
4. At no stage did the worker accept the dismissal. He asked for his P45 only because he required it in order to make a claim for social welfare payment.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. During the worker's 7 months with the Company, numerous complaints were received from various customers (details supplied to the Court), relating to late or incomplete deliveries and smoking in the course of making deliveries. He had been given a number of warnings and chances by the Company. However, it was decided to give him one week's notice on the 21st of June, 1998.
2. On being given his notice, the worker did not enquire why he was being dismissed nor did he ask for another chance. He accepted the situation and left, although, subsequently, it was reported to management that he had acted in a threatening manner towards three former colleagues.
3. The worker was given fair treatment by the Company in respect of both his conditions of employment and in the fact that he was given warnings about his performance.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having heard the submission and the oral evidence presented at the hearing, the Court finds that, as the proper procedures were not adhered to, the dismissal of the claimant was unfair and, accordingly, recommends re-engagement. In recommending re-engagement the Court noted that the employer had been willing to give the claimanta second chanceand also the consensus between the parties thata good relationship has existed in the beginning.
The Court recommends that the claimant should be offered re-employment within four weeks of receipt of this Recommendation. That offer to remain open for a period of four weeks. If accepted, his employment would be on a probationary period for three months, during which time his performance must be assessed by the employer. If difficulties arise, the claimant must be given warnings in accordance with the disciplinary procedures as specified below.
The employer is obliged to comply with the following:-
The employer must supply a written contract of employment, as required under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 The contract must contain the following particulars:-
- the duties and responsibilities of the job,
- the rates of pay, overtime arrangements, hours of work,
- any terms and conditions relating to sickness and absences from work - reporting procedures, requirements for medical certificates, sick-pay (if applicable), etc.,
- any other conditions of employment relevant to the employment,
- notice entitlements as per Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973,
- disciplinary procedures as perthe Labour Relations Commission'sCode of Practice on Disciplinary Procedures.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
10th November, 1998______________________
MK/BCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.