FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DEJAY ROYALE - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY KEALIN IRELAND) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal
BACKGROUND:
2. The claimant, herein referred to as the worker, was employed by the Company in August 2003, where he worked as a Technical Services Manager until his dismissal in July 2004. The worker's terms and conditions of employment included a salary and an entitlement to an annual bonus subject to agreed targets being achieved. The worker's performance was not discussed with him at any time and his bonus was paid on time. The worker contends that he was dismissed without any prior warning, discussion or negotiation. The case before the Court concerns a claim of unfair dismissal. The Company rejects the claim.
- On the 2nd of September, 2004, 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 11th November, 2004.
The worker agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker carried out his work with the Company without any criticism. At no time was there any suggestion that his performance was poor or unacceptable. No warnings, verbal or written, were given to him at any stage.The dismissal came as a complete surprise to the worker. It was not the subject of discussion or debate.
2. The worker had expressed concerns about his working situation when he had been given extra responsibilities. He was concerned that it would not be possible to successfully carry out the two responsibilities. The Company's response was to dismiss him rather than deal with the issues which the worker had raised.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. As head of the Operations Department, the worker had full responsibility for all matters relating to the achieving of targets set including managing staff and setting up the relevant systems. This was to be set up within the first three months and it was not done, and although the Company were disappointed that a suitable system had not been set up by the end of the second three month period, for the sake of goodwill, they agreed to pay him his bonus in full.
2. Monthly management meetings were held whereby it was clear that the targets were not being achieved. The under performance of the Operations Department became a serious problem and the worker was advised that his performance was not satisfactory. The matter was investigated further and it was decided that the Company could no longer accept the incompetence it was receiving and the worker was dismissed with one months notice.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court is of the view that the disciplinary procedures adopted by the Company were inappropriate, were not carried out in accordance with Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures S.I No 146 of 2000 and did not convey Management's view that the claimant's employment was in jeopardy.
Consequently, the Court is of the view that the summary dismissal of the claimant was unacceptable. The Court recommends that the claimant should be compensated by the payment of €20,000 in full and final settlement of the claim before the Court.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
22nd November, 2004______________________
JO'CDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Joanne O'Connor, Court Secretary.