FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : XTRATHERM LTD - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Claimant was employed as a Laboratory Technician with the Company from the 3rd February 2005 until his dismissal on the 20th May 2005. During this period he was on probation. The purpose of probation being to assess someone’s suitability to employment in the Company not only in their skill set but also how they will fit in.
On the 12th May 2005 the Claimant was requested by the Company to undertake, on a temporary basis, the main duties of the Goods Inwards and Production Facilitator. For reasons, which he believed to be valid, he declined to take on the extra duties.
A corrective action meeting was held between the Company and the Claimant, following which he was issued with a notice of dismissal. He appealed this decision to the Managing Director but the dismissal notice was upheld.
The Claimant referred his appeal against dismissal to the Rights Commissioner Service of the Labour Relations Commission. The Company refused to attend the hearing.
The Claimant referred his claim to the Labour Court on the 31st January, 2006, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and agreed to be bound by the Court’s recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 19th July, 2006.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.The Worker claims that the Company did not supply him with personal protective equipment appropriate to the task of the Goods Inwards and Production Facilitator.
2. The Worker claims that no formal training was provided by the Company to allow him to safely and competently carry out the task of off-loading bulk Chemical Tankers.
3. The position advertised, interviewed for and accepted by the Worker was that of Laboratory Technician which was consistent with his qualifications.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The Worker signed for receipt of safety shoes. He also knew that there was adequate personal protective equipment on site available on request.
2. The Worker did receive training in the Company's safety manual and in safe handling techniques on his first day at work before he was let on to the factory floor. He also worked alongside a colleague and received training and direction from him.
3. The Worker was requested to carry out the tanker off-loading on a temporary basis until a replacement was found for a colleague who had left. It was not a full time role.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the oral and written submissions of the parties and also noting the probationary nature of the Claimant's employment, the Court does not find that he was unfairly dismissed and does not therefore recommend concession of his claim.
The Court would, however, advise the Company to review its grievance and disciplinary procedures and to bring them into general conformity with accepted norms (as set out in S.I. 146/2000).
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
8th September, 2006______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.