FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : BRUSS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a family owned German Company that has operated in Sligo since1982. It manufactures automotive parts and supplies automotive manufacturers with rubber engine seals, rings and gaskets. The worker concerned was employed by the Company from 16th January, 2004 until the time of his dismissal on the 16th June, 2004. The worker was given a 12 month fixed term contract that held provision for a 16 week probationary period.
The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of its member that he was unfairly dismissed at the end of his probationary period. The Union appealed the dismissal to the Company and during the appeal hearing the Company claimed that the worker was performing his job in an unsafe manner. The Union requested that he be given further training and an extension to his probation. The request was refused by the Company and the worker dismissed.
The issue was referred to the Labour Court on the 3rd August, 2004, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 24th February, 2005.
The Union agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker sufferered two minor accidents at work which resulted in certified sick leave. The Company paid him during the first absence but not during the second period.
2. The Company have failed to convince or produce any evidence to justify dismissing the worker.
3. The Company were unreasonable in not allowing the worker a chance for further assessment and an extension of his probationary period.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.Due to the nature of the manufacturing process it is essential that all employees carry out their duties in a safe and competent manner without risk to themselves or others.
2. The worker received full induction training including Health and Safety in the workplace.
3. The Company followed procedure closely and advised the worker as to the reason why his probation was unsuccessful.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court does not in the circumstances, consider that the Company dismissed the claimant unfairly during his probationary period, although the Court finds the Company's recording procedures to be somewhat deficient vis-a-vis the norm.
The Court, however, notes that he was certified unfit for work by the Company Doctor during his second absence.
The Court therefore recommends that:
- the dismissal should stand
- he be paid in respect of his second absence (in the circumstances of this particular case)
- he be provided with a reference
- the Company should review and tighten up its procedures regarding probationary employees.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
15th March, 2005______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.