FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ITM DUBLIN (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker commenced employment with the Company as an inventory controller on the 7th of February, 2000 and was dismissed on the 26th of April, 2000.
The worker claims that he was unfairly dismissed. He states that when he returned to work following an illness his employment was terminated by the Company. The worker maintains that the Company failed to follow proper procedures when dismissing him.
The Company states that the worker was dismissed because of his poor time-keeping and attendance record. It claims that the worker was given numerous warnings and opportunities to improve. The worker was on a six month probationary period.
The worker referred the dispute to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on the 17th of August, 2000.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker alleges breach of contract as the job he was given was not the position he applied for.
2. The Company failed to adhere to proper disciplinary procedures before dismissing him.
3. The worker always obtained a sick note from his doctor whenever he was absent from work through illness.
4. The worker was not given the opportunity to have a witness present at the disciplinary hearing. Furthermore, his right to natural justice and a fair hearing was not adhered to.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The worker was dismissed because of his poor attendance and time-keeping record.
2. Management gave the claimant every opportunity to improve his attendance and time-keeping but he failed to do so.
3. The worker was spoken to by management on several occasions regarding his attendance/time-keeping and was aware that failure to achieve a certain standard would lead to the termination of his employment.
4. The worker was on probation. He did not reach the standards required by the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court having considered the submissions of the parties is of the view that the actions of management in terminating the worker's employment were not unfair under the circumstances.
The Court is satisfied that the Company had in place appropriate and satisfactory disciplinary procedures, which were clearly communicated to the worker at the commencement of his employment. The Court is also satisfied that these procedures were implemented in a fair and reasonable manner.
Accordingly, the claim for unfair dismissal fails.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
25th August, 2000______________________
LW/BCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.