FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : NORTHERN FEATHER LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY) SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioners Recommendation IR17778/03/GF.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures quilts and pillows for the Irish and UK markets. The appeal concerns a worker who commenced employment on the 11th September, 2003 as a general operative in the Warehouse. The worker was dismissed on the 18th November, 2003. The Union claimed that the dismissal was unfair and referred the issue to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. On the 29th April, 2004 the Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation as follows:
"It has been freely agreed by both parties on the terms of the company /union agreement may be interpreted by future adjudicators as being flawed. However, I feel that sufficient information has emerged to suggest the dismissal was not unfair. I find in the company's favour".
On the 14th May, 2004 the Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court. The Court heard the appeal in Castlebar, on the 6th July, 2004.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The claimant was a conscientious worker with a good attendance record and worked overtime when requested.
2. When Management requested the worker to transfer to a second shift he was agreeable to do so subject to being paid the appropriate premium rate. The worker queried the rate offered by Management and because he exercised the right to achieve the higher agreed rate he was dismissed.
3. The manner of his dismissal was unfair. The Union was not given the opportunity to represent the worker at any probationary meetings as provided for in the Company/ Union agreement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claimant was on a three months probationary period. The worker was advised at a number of probationary meetings of the need to improve his performance. The Company finally deemed him to be unsuitable for the employment.
2. The worker was dismissed within the probationary period. The Company/Union agreement states that:
"Probationary employees found unsuitable may be discharged without assigning cause during probationary period".
3. The Company acted in a fair and reasonable manner.
DECISION:
The Court is satisfied that the decision to dismiss the claimant was taken prior to the meeting on 18th November, 2003 and that he was, therefore, deprived of any opportunity to speak on his own behalf in relation to the dismissal. The Court further believes that the Company's failure to advise the claimant of his right to be represented by his shop steward also contravened the requirements of fair procedure.
In the circumstances the Court is of the view that the dismissal was procedurally unfair and that the claimant should be paid compensation in the amount of €1,000.
The recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is amended accordingly.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
15th July, 2004______________________
TOD/BRChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.