FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : CLEAR E SOLUTIONS/20:20 LOGISTICS IRELAND (REPRESENTED BY L K SHIELDS SOLICITORS) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY EMPLOYMENT LAW ADVISORY CENTRE LIMITED) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker commenced employment as a 'car-kit' installation engineer with Clear E Solutions - a Company within the Caudwell Group - on the 19th of July, 2004. He was one of a number of employees taken on around that date. The Union's case is that a number of other car kit engineers were taken on in October, 2004, and the reason given was increased customer demand. At the end of November, 2004, the worker and another colleague was told that, due to a slowing down in the car kit installation business, he would have to be laid off. At the same time the worker was told that it was a busy time for 20:20 Logistics Ireland, a sister company of Clear E Solutions. When the worker enquired as to why he, and not some of the other workers employed in October was chosen for lay off, he was told to go and work in 20:20 Logistics or hand in his resignation.
The worker decided to try 20:20 Logistics. He worked until 6.00 p.m. for the next 10 days although he was unhappy with work involved - packing cases. At the end of two weeks he was informed that his hours of work were to be changed to 11.00 a.m. to 8.30 p.m. which did not suit him. He raised an informal grievance with his manager and a meeting took place. The outcome was that he was told to"work it out or be put on temporary leave without pay". The worker was upset and was on sick leave until the 13th of December. He requested another meeting and one was arranged by management for the 15th of December. The worker was unable to attend this as he had received a subpoena to attend court as a witness. He also had to attend Court the following day and when he returned to work that evening he received a letter informing him that his contract was terminated.
The Company's case is that the worker was not willing to continue working at 20:20 Logistics. The Company tried to arrange meetings with him to sort the matter but he did not attend the said meetings. It felt it had no choice but to let the worker go.
The worker referred his case to the Labour Court on the 1st of June, 2005, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act ,1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 25th of August, 2005. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. (1) The worker was contracted to work for Clear E Solutions. He got through his training and probationary period of three months with no problems.
(2) In late November, 2004 he was selected for lay off even though other employees still on probation were chosen to stay on. The worker had completed his three months probation. At no stage did 20:20 Logistics inform him that he was on probation or trial with them.
(3) The worker was very badly treated by the Company which did not follow any of the normal steps in regard to discipline or dismissal.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. (1) The worker was not unfairly selected for lay-off. The Company had suffered a downturn in its car kit business. The worker was informed that the move to 20:20 Logistics would be temporary. The only alternative work for the worker was to move to 20:20.
(2) The worker refused to accept his new hours of work. A meeting was arranged to explain the situation and the need for flexibility from the worker. He was due to attend another meeting after considering his position but he failed to turn up. A third meeting was arranged but he also failed to attend that. The worker was paid one month's salary in lieu of 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 not applied appropriately in this case and the worker was not given an opportunity to appeal the dismissal decision.
The Court is also of the view that the worker was presented with options and offers to accommodate his needs in circumstances where the Company was forced to lay off some staff. In declining these options, the Court finds that the worker, in part, contributed to his own dismissal.
Consequently, the Court recommends that the claimant should be compensated by the payment of €1,000 in full and final settlement of the claim before the Court.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
9th September, 2005______________________
CON/PCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.