FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : REINSHAWS SWORDS (REPRESENTED BY MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES (IRELAND) LTD.) - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's recommendation IR 4312/01/JH.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the manufacturing and assembly of probes for the engineering industry and employs 140 staff. The worker commenced employment with the Company as an operator on the 5th of February, 2001, and her employment was terminated on the 28th of February, 2001. The worker alleged unfair dismissal. The matter was referred to the Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. The Rights Commissioner recommended as follows:-
"For the reasonsset out in the conclusion above, I find that the Company did not act entirely fairly to the worker in terminating her employment and I recommend that the Company would pay her the sum of £500 (634.87 Euro) compensation for the loss of her employment"
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's recommendation).
On the 27th of August, 2001, the Company appealed the decision of the Rights Commissioner to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court investigated the complaint on the 11th of December, 2001.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was not aware she was being assessed, she had never seen the assessment form.
2. The worker was told by her cell leader that her work was good and that she was getting on very well.
3. The worker was never advised that her work was not up to standard.
4. The worker was not given a verbal warning before being dismissed, the Company book on procedures provides for such a warning.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS
4. 1. The fact that the worker was absent on two occasions was not the influencing factor that caused her dismissal.
2. The Company exercised its right under the contract of employment to terminate the workers employment and is concerned that this right is being questioned.
3. A review, which was documented, was conducted on the worker during her second week of employment and trainers had to spend a lot more time with the worker because she was not performing satisfactorily or to the quality standards required.
4. The Company suggest that to allow this decision to remain would undermine the well established status of the probationary period and would be seen as punishing an employer for exercising their right fairly.
DECISION:
The Court, having considered the written and oral submissions made by the parties, supports the Rights Commissioner's conclusion.
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
7th January, 2002______________________
HMCD/CCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Helena McDermott, Court Secretary.