FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DUBLIN CITY UNIVERSITY - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Compensation.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a worker whose employment was terminated before the completion of a probationary period. The worker commenced work with Dublin City University on 7th October 2002 as a building maintenance supervisor. During the period of probation there were three assessments carried out by management. The first assessment went well and management were satisfied that, with the appropriate training, the worker would do very well in the position. At the second assessment the worker was informed of certain areas that needed to be improved upon before he would be confirmed in this appointment. At the third assessment the worker was informed that his initiative was not at the required standard and colleagues and supervisors found him difficult to work with. The worker was not happy at what had been said and left the meeting. Management decided that as a result of these actions and the issues previously raised, they were unable to confirm the worker in his appointment and terminated the employment accordingly.
On the 1st July 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 1st October 2004
The worker agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Management failed to adhere to fair procedures in terminating the employment of the worker. Indeed management ignored their own internal procedure in this case by refusing to deal with a grievance raised by a member of staff in accordance with that procedure.
2. The worker should have been afforded the opportunity to make a case based on his grievance. However management's refusal to meet with the Union and deal with this matter in the appropriate way, have denied the worker the Right of Representation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company had fair reason for terminating the claimants employment. The performance of the worker during the probationary period did not reach a standard acceptable to the Company. Management had expressed concerns regarding the workers relationships with fellow employees, his lack of initiative, his attendance levels and his failure to follow the appropriate absence reporting procedures.
2. The Company reserve the right to determine that an employee, within the probationary period is unsuitable. In such circumstances, the Company has the right to terminate the employment.
3. The worker was, at all times, afforded his rights pursuant to natural justice.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the submissions of both sides concerning the alleged unfair dismissal of the worker. The Union contested the dismissal of the worker stating that management had refused to adhere to fair procedures in terminating the employment of the worker and it sought compensation on his behalf.
The Court is of the view that the procedures adopted by management in this case were exercised reasonably. It takes the view that the worker's actions during the final probationary assessment were unwise and clearly influenced management's decision to terminate his employment. However, the Court is of the view that the impact of the appeal hearing not taking place, denied him an opportunity to make representation on his own behalf.
Therefore, in full and final settlement, inclusive of the shortfall on the notice given, the Court recommends that he should be paid the sum of €2000 compensation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
14th October 2004______________________
AH.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.