FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : PORTROE STEVEDORES LIMITED - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SIPTU (MPGWU)) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioners Recommendation IR20100/04/DI.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed by the Company from 25th August, 2003, to 17th February, 2004. He was initially employed on a 3-month contract. The Company claims that although he was not making good progress it was decided to give him another 3 months to see if he could improve. However, at the end of the second period the Company decided to let the worker go. The Union's case is that the worker carried out all instructions and requirements of the Company and that the reason for the dismissal was because he sought certificates of competencies he had acquired during his employment.
The case was referred to a Rights Commissioner whose recommendation was as follows:-
"The Agreement between the Union and the Company of July, 2003, is specific in that it sets down a procedure to be adopted where the competency of an employee is identified as being below the standard required by the Company. This procedure was not adopted in the worker's case and I believe that the Company, if there was a problem with the worker's competencies, could have taken actions to remedy any gap that existed or, at the very least, to clearly show that the worker was incapable of performing his duties despite receiving extensive training. I find in favour of the worker's complaint. However, I do not recommend re-instatement as I believe the basic trust between an employee and their employer has been damaged to such a degree that re-instatement is not a realistic option. I recommend that the worker receive compensation of €4,000 for loss of office. This award is subject to normal revenue regulations.".
(The worker was named in the above recommendation)
The Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 25th of February, 2005, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 3rd of May, 2005.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.The worker's competency and his ability to do the job were never questioned at any time during his employment. He did not create any problems during this time.
2. The Rights Commissioner found that the Company did not adopt the proper procedures in dealing with the worker's competency.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was let go because, despite a 3-month trial period and a further 3-month job assessment, he had not reached the required level of competency. The Company had spent a considerable amount of time and money in trying to bring the worker up to the required level.
DECISION:
The Court is of the view that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation should be implemented with the modification that the compensation payable should be increased to €7,000. This figure should be in full and final settlement of all claims which the claimant has arising from his employment.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
13th May, 2005______________________
CON/MB.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.