FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : SAM HIRE LIMITED - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a worker who commenced employment with the Company on the 3rd April, 2003. His job involved delivery and collection of tools and machinery which were hired to customers. The worker was employed on a six months probationary period which ended on the 3rd October 2003. At a meeting with the worker on 29th October, 2003 Management extended the probationary period for a further three months on the basis that he had not reached the required standard. The worker was dismissed on the 9th December, 2003. The Union claimed that he was unfairly dismissed and sought to refer the issue to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. The Company objected to such a referral. On the 20th December, 2004 the Union submitted 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 on the 15th July, 2005. The Company declined an invitation to attend the hearing but made a written submission which was considered by the Court.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. During the period of the worker's employment he was never cautioned, nor did he receive any warnings under the disciplinary procedures. The Company did not advise the worker during the 6 months probationary period that there were any problems with his work performance. If there was a problem he should have been advised as to its nature and proper monitoring procedures put in place to allow him the opportunity to rectify it.
3. On the 3rd October, 2003 the worker's probationary period had expired. Management should have made arrangements to formally speak to him and explain the situation obtaining at that time.
4. At the meeting of 29th October Management did not specify the exact problem in relation to the worker's performance. Targets were not set nor was any system to monitor his progress put in place.
5. The claimant had an exemplary record in terms of time keeping, attendance and deliveries according to his immediate line manager.
6. The principles of natural justice were not applied to the worker's dismissal. The Company refused to allow the worker the opportunity to present his case accompanied by his trade union representative. The Company unfairly dismissed the worker without applying any fair or proper procedures. The Union is seeking appropriate compensation.
RECOMMENDATION:
The employer declined the Court's invitation to attend the hearing. It did, however, furnish the Court with a written submission which was taken into account by the Court. The Court nonetheless considers it regrettable that the employer did not make a representative available to elaborate on its stated position and to respond to the union's submission so as to assist the Court in its investigation.
On the information available to it the Court is satisfied that the claimant had completed his probation on 3rd October, 2004. The Court does not accept that the employer was entitled to retrospectively extend this period. Furthermore the Court is satisfied that the employer denied the claimant fair representation within the meaning of the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures (S.I. 146 of 2000) when he sought to pursue a grievance in that regard.
Having regard to all the circumstances of the case the Court is satisfied the claimant's dismissal was unfair. The Court recommends that the employer should offer and the claimant should accept compensation in an amount equal to six months pay in full and final settlement of his claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
22nd July, 2005______________________
todChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.