FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MOOVMOR ENGINEERING LIMITED - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal against the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. 47/99GF.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns one worker who was employed by the Company, in the capacity of welder/fabricator, on the 20th of April, 1998. He was dismissed on the 15th of January, 1999, on the grounds that the quality of his work was poor and productivity was unacceptable. The worker disputes the grounds for dismissal and referred the matter to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. The Rights Commissioner found that the claimant
"......had considerable difficulties in learning the skills of the job and was also unfortunate with health problems and he simply fell out of line with his co-workers."
He found also that the employer had not acted unreasonably and, accordingly, found the dismissal not to have been unfair.
The worker appealed the Rights Commissioner's recommendation to the Labour Court, on the 29th of April, 1999, in accordance with Section 13 (9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court heard the appeal on the 25th of June, 1999.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
1. In relation to the meeting of targets and the quality of work, the worker was paired with a number of different partners and it was unreasonable of the Company to blame him for all faults arising.
2. For all occasions that the worker was absent from work he produced medical certificates.
3. While the worker was aware that he had occasionally failed to reach targets he was not informed that he was to be on trial when he returned from his holidays.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The worker's output and workmanship did not reach the required standard and he was advised accordingly (details supplied to the Court). In one particularly serious incident, the unit produced by the worker's bay was only partially welded, rendering it extremely dangerous. Additionally, the worker's bay handed in their time-sheet and quality check list without bothering to complete them which is a requirement for every product.
2. The worker was absent for approximately 27 days during his 9 months with the Company. Invariably, sick certificates were provided by him only retrospectively.
3. The worker's poor performance had a negative effect on the morale of his colleagues. The Company had no alternative but to let him go. The Company's decision was not taken lightly and the worker was shown considerable leniency by the Company.
DECISION:
The Court having considered all the information supplied finds no basis to change the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation.
The Court, therefore, rejects the appeal and upholds the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
15th July, 1999______________________
MK/BCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.