FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : WESTMEATH OFFALY INDEPENDENT PRINT COMPANY LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company which produces three regional newspapers employs approximately seventy staff and is based in three locations in the Midlands. The worker commenced employment in a front office role on the 17th June, 2003, and employment was terminated on the 15th July, 2003. The case before the Court concerns a claim by a worker for alleged unfair dismissal. The Company rejects the claim.
- On the 8th December, 2003, the worker referred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 20th April, 2004.
- The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
- The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
3. 1. There was no intensive training period, rather a loosely based, pick things up as you go along type of induction to the job.
2. The worker was never made aware that there were problems with duties performed and cannot understand why an explanation was never given to enable the worker to work on these problems.
3. The manner in which the worker was treated was appalling. Great trauma has been suffered for a long time afterwards.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was made aware prior to taking up employment that permanency was subject to satisfactory completion of probation and was fairly dismissed during a four week probationary period of unsatisfactory employment.
2. The worker was made aware of shortfalls but was unwilling to accept advice, direction and training, resulting in operational difficulties which compromised the professionalism of the office.
3. The Company was justified in determining that the worker was unsuitable for a permanent position and the decision to terminate employment was both warranted and correct.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court does not accept that the claimant was given an opportunity to correct any perceived deficiencies, in what was a relatively short period working for the organisation.
She may have been spoken to by her supervisor on a number of issues but at no time was she made aware that any of the issues were viewed as serious or that they might result in her employment being terminated.
In the circumstances the Court finds that the claimant was treated unfairly and recommends that compensation of €1,000 should be made to the claimant.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
8th June, 2004______________________
JO'CDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Joanne O'Connor, Court Secretary.