FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : BALLYMOUNT PRECISION ENGINEERING LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES(IRL) LIMITED) - 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 commenced employment with the Company on the 22nd of January, 1998. He was dismissed on the 23rd February, 1998 on the grounds, the Company claims, that he had been absent from work on at least three occasions, "on at least two of which he failed to inform his superior of his absence". The worker's position is that his absences were due to illness and, while acknowledging that he should have notified his supervisor on all occasions, he claims his dismissal was unfair on the grounds that it was without notice. He claims that, as a result of his dismissal, his name "has been blackened". The worker referred the matter to the Labour Court, on the 14th of May, 1998, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court carried out its investigation, on the 28th of September, 1998.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was suffering from headaches which were contributed to by the working environment. On the day of his dismissal (Monday, 23rd February) he produced a doctor's certificate in respect of his absence on the previous Friday. The Personnel Officer queried the authenticity of the certificate but, instead of checking with the doctor, he continued to interrogate the worker, who was, subsequently, dismissed.
2. On the Friday, the worker's mother rang the employer to notify him of his illness. Subsequently, at the time the worker's father stated that he did not know of his (the worker's) whereabouts, he was actually in attendance at the doctor.
3. The worker was not given the opportunity to have a colleague or representative present at the meeting with the Personnel Officer on the Monday morning.
4. Following the meeting during which he was dismissed, the worker was humiliated by management. Since his dismissal, he has tried to secure other employment, without success due, he believes, to the circumstances of his departure from this Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was employed on a six-month probationary period in accordance with normal Company practice. The Company was experiencing difficulties regarding the worker's reliability and those difficulties were compounded by his failure to contact the Company when absent, and his belligerent attitude regarding the problem.
2. The Company acted in accordance with its normal procedures, which were explained to the worker during his job interview. He was also advised of his right to have a work-colleague present during the meeting with the Personnel Officer and the Supervisor. The worker declined to have a colleague present.
3. The worker was hired to be part of a small team. Once one of the team is missing, the production line stops running. If the worker had given notification of his absence alternative arrangements could have been made but, although he had ample opportunity to contact the Company, he failed to do so.
4. The worker has not approached the Company for a reference. Any such approach would be dealt with in an honest manner.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered both the written submissions and the oral evidence presented at the hearing, the Court does not find that the claimant was unfairly dismissed.
The Court recommends that the Company should revise its form entitled "Interview Details" to reflect the induction nature of its intention and should give specific details rather than headings. It should spell out requirements with regard to absence reporting and should be clear about the disciplinary procedures which apply during and after probation.
Furthermore, the Company should ensure that all employees are supplied with a copy of their contract of employment.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
13th October, 1998______________________
MK/BCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.