FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : SOFTCO LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the provision of a service - 'document audits' - to law firms. It involves the computerisation of law firm client files received by the Company as paper files onto computer disc. There are 3 phases - coding, scanning and reconstruction. The worker was hired on a specified purpose contract for a particular document audit. He commenced employment on the 7th of December, 2000 and was dismissed effectively on the 6th of September, 2001.
On the 29th of August, 2001, the worker requested a meeting with management and was accompanied by a fellow worker. He discussed a number of issues, including what he regarded as the "classroom " atmosphere in the office. On the following day he was dismissed and given one week's pay in lieu of notice. The worker believes that he was dismissed because he had requested the meeting. The Company's view is that the worker was not suited to the job despite being given numerous chances to improve.
The worker referred his case to the Labour Court on the 24th of January, 2002, in accordance with Section 20(1), of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 9th of April, 2002. The worker agreed to be bound by the Courts' recommendation.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was unfairly dismissed. He was given no verbal or written warnings that he might be dismissed. He was given no explanation for the dismissal and was told by the Chief Executive Officer that none had to be given.
2. At the meeting on the 29th of August, the worker had merely expressed the views of his co-workers about the poor atmosphere in the office. He felt that the meeting had been open and frank and would help to improve the situation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was not suited to the job. He was continually making mistakes despite being given comprehensive training in all 3 phases- coding, scanning and reconstruction. As a result of these mistakes his work often had to be re-done.
2. The worker took a number of unauthorised breaks during the day. Despite being spoken to about this he continued to take them.
3. During the meeting of the 29th of August, the worker was quite hostile to the project manager and claimed that he was being unduly scrutinised.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has taken account of both the written and oral submissions of both parties. The Court has examined the procedures involved in this dismissal, and is of the view that they were seriously flawed.
The employee was given no formal warning, and was not warned that his job was in jeopardy. On commencement of his employment, the employee was issued with a contract of employment. The Company admitted to the Court that management did not observe the probationary procedures and the disciplinary procedures contained therein.
The Court is satisfied that the Company did not follow fair procedures and, consequently, his employment was unfairly terminated. In this regard, the Court has taken account of the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures made under Section 42 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990 (S.I. No. 146 of 2000) which sets out the procedural stages which an employer should follow in dealing with matters of discipline.
The Court is of the view that his dismissal resulted directly as a result of the employee airing a grievance with a member of management.
Taking account of all the circumstances of this case, the Court recommends that the employer should pay the claimant the sum of €2500 in full and final settlement of this claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
18th April, 2002______________________
CON/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.