FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ST. PATRICK'S BOYS NATIONAL SCHOOL - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a worker who commenced employment as Special Needs Assistant (SNA) on the 3rd September, 2001. She was employed on a one year's probationary period. Her employment ended on the 2nd September, 2002. The Union claimed that the worker was unfairly dismissed and sought to refer the issue to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. Management objected to such a referral. On the 11th December, 2002 the Union referred a complaint to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Court hearing was held in Newbridge on the 4th September, 2003.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. During the period of her employment the claimant did not receive formal written or verbal warnings in relation to her employment or general conduct. The SNA,s as a group, were spoken to by Management in relation to the issues of smoking and punctuality.
2. The claimant was advised by Management that, because of a reduction in pupil numbers, one SNA would have to be employed part-time. She was offered this option and, while considering it, was advised that she was being dismissed.
3. The claimant was unfairly dismissed. She seeks appropriate compensation and reinstatement into her former position in the school.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Conditions of Employment, signed and accepted by the claimant, provide that " at the end of the probationary period the appointment may be confirmed, probation extended for a further period, or services terminated as the Board of Management may determine."
2. The claimant was sometimes late for class and smoked during school hours and was advised this was not acceptable.
3 In June, 2003 a special needs pupil was transferred to another school. The implications were that one SNA would no longer have a full time post.
4. The Principal reviewed the situation. He recommended that the claimant's appointment should not be confirmed, nor her probation extended, but that her services be terminated. He informed the claimant of Management's decision two months before her employment ended.
5. Of the 4 SNA's in the employment the claimant's work was the least satisfactory, especially in the area of punctuality and also smoking on the premises.
6. The worker was advised of the impending advertisement for the position of a part-time SNA. However she was not offered the post and did not apply for it.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered the written and oral submissions made by the parties, is not satisfied that the claimant was made aware of her shortcomings and the consequences of the continuation of these perceived failures. The reasons given by the Management may very well be valid but no case was made to indicate any attempts were made to make the claimant aware of her performance deficit.
While the Court accepts that Management were presented with a situation where one of the SNA's had to go, it is not satisfied that the criteria used were fair and reasonable given that the claimant had not been made aware of any problems.
The Court also believes that the Management were disingenuous in leading her to believe there would be another position that she could apply for, while not indicating to her that it was unlikely that she would be appointed to that position.
Taking into account all of the information before it the Court is of the view that the manner of the dismissal of the claimant was unfair and recommends that she be paid €7,500 in compensation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
14th October, 2003______________________
TODChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.