FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : BMC MANUFACTURING - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is engaged in the manufacture of switchgear which is produced to client specifications. It employs approximately 50 people of whom 16 are electricians.
On the 25th 0f May, 1998 the worker concerned commenced employment with the Company as an electrician for a three months probationary period. His employment was terminated in April, 1999.
The Company's position is that following the completion of the worker's probationary period there was a decline in his work performance which culminated in serious difficulties with his work in February, 1999.
The worker claimed that he had been unfairly dismissed and referred the matter to the Labour Court on the 28th of April, 1999, under Section 20 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 28th of June, 1999.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The worker received no complaints from Management concerning his job performance. There was no indication from Management that it was unhappy with his work. No formal warnings, written or verbal were issued and the worker's attendance was punctual and regular.
2. He received no reasonable explanation regarding his dismissal and he was given no alternative to accepting payment in lieu of notice and dismissal on the day in question.
3. The worker has been previously employed by the Company. He was re-employed and following his probationary period he was led to believe that his work was permanent.
4. He is satisfied that his work was on a par or better than many of the other employees. He was happy at his work and was hoping to receive a mortgage on the strength of his employment, having recently returned from abroad. He was unfairly treated by Management and he should be compensated for his loss.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The worker commenced employment on a three-month probationary period during which time there appeared to be no difficulties concerning his performance at work. His probationary period expired at the end of August, 1998. However, by October there was a deterioration in his performance and attitude. By November/December it was apparent to his supervisor that he was not committed to his work.
2. About this time the Company re-located. The new location was bigger and more open. As a result of this increased visibility it became clear that the worker was continually spending more time talking to people than working. When a supervisor or manager appeared on the floor the worker would blatantly ignore them.
3. As a result of this deterioration in his attitude he was spoken to by his foreman on a number of occasions. Despite this it became apparent by the end of February that he was failing to improve and was becoming a hindrance to everybody.
4. BMC Manufacturing is a relatively young company and has developed a good work atmosphere with its employees. Work relationships with Management are generally friendly and non-confrontational. This was the first occasion that production management had difficulties with an employee who was not committed to his work and they had a difficulty in handling the situation as it was having an adverse affect upon other employees.
5. The worker alleges that the Company treated him unfairly. However, on the completion of his probationary period a noticeable decline in his performance began which culminated in serious difficulties with his work. The decision to dismiss was not taken lightly as the Company is anxious to employ as many people as possible due to the demands of the business. It was a reflection of his work performance that the Company was left with no alternative but to dismiss him.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions made by the parties.
The Court is satisfied that the claimant was not given any warning in relation to his work performance.
The explanation given for his dismissal "that he was too laid back" does not justify the sudden termination of his employment. While Management may have felt that the claimant had an attitude problem, no real attempt was made to deal with the perceived problem.
Taking into account all aspects of the case the Court finds that the manner of his dismissal was unfair and recommends that the Company pay the claimant £1,000 in compensation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
14th July, 1999.______________________
FB/BCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.