FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : BALLINASLOE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (REPRESENTED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES BOARD) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. RC368/97 concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment as a supervisor on the 16th of November, 1996, on a Community Employment Scheme, which was sponsored by the Ballinasloe Urban District Council. The Scheme was due to last for 12 months. His employment was terminated on the 24th of November, 1996. The Council argues that the worker was unsuitable for the position for which he was employed.
The worker claimed that he had been unfairly dismissed and referred the matter to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. The Rights Commissioner's findings and recommendation are as follows:-
"While an employer may well be entitled to terminate the
employment of an employee who is not suitable for the position
that he occupies, there is also a clear onus on all employers
to take due care when recruiting an employee.
Based on the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that
Ballinasloe Urban District Council fulfilled their responsibilities
in this case. I am, therefore, recommending that they now make
a payment to the worker.
Several other matters were mentioned at the Hearing, including
various allegations regarding what was allegedly said at
different times in November, 1996. While this recommendation can
only deal with the industrial relations aspects of the dispute, I
would suggest that it might be best for all concerned if both parties
were able to regard the recommendation as the final act in the
dispute.
Given the worker's relatively short service, and all the circumstances
of the case, I now recommend that Ballinasloe Urban District
Council should pay the worker a sum of £1,500 in full and final
resolution of all matters relating to this dispute."
The worker was named in the recommendation.
The Rights Commissioner's recommendation was appealed by the Union to the Labour Court on the 13th of October, 1997, under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place in Galway on the 7th of October, 1998. The first date suitable to both parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. During the second week of his employment the worker was told by an official of the Council that "this was not working out". He was not given a fair chance to defend himself and no explanation was given by the official for his dissatisfaction.
2. The worker was advised that he would not obtain employment in the future with the Galway County Council or the Ballinasloe Urban District Council.
3. When the worker sought an explanation for his dismissal he was informed that the official personally disliked him.
4. The worker's dismissal caused him considerable hardship and embarrassment and has damaged his employment prospects in the Galway area.
5. The worker is seeking payment in full of the 52 weeks contract, re-engagement in an appropriate post and an apology for his unfair treatment.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Council had the following concerns in relation to the worker's behaviour/work performance, within the first week of his employment:-
1. He was assuming an unacceptable familiarity with the Council's general operatives.
2. Existing permanent staff had reported that he had sought to control works to such a degree that they were not willing to work with him.
3. He displayed a difficulty in reporting to and taking instructions from the Town foreman/acting foreman.
4. On occasions he behaved in a manner in which he was considered to be a danger to himself and others.
2. The worker's behaviour and work performance from the first week of his employment indicated that he was not suitable for the position in which he was employed. When the Council's concerns were brought to his attention he indicated that he did not accept that there was a problem and he confirmed that he would not be changing his approach. The Council was, therefore, left with no alternative but to terminate his employment.
DECISION:
The Court having considered the written and oral submissions upholds the Rights Commissioner's recommendation but amends the payment figure from £1,500 to £2,000 in full and final settlement of this claim.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
20th October, 1998______________________
F.B./D.T.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.