FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : RONAN RUDDEN - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case concerns a dispute between the employer who operates an alarm fitting company and a former worker who claims he was unfairly dismissed. The worker in question had left a previous job to take up an apprenticeship with the employee. The worker is claiming that he was dismissed from his apprenticeship on the grounds that the employer had no work for him to perform, having allegedly lost an important contract, yet it is claimed a new apprentice was subsequently taken on in his place.
The employer's position is that an important contract had been lost which resulted in the dismissal but that every effort had been made to secure the worker employment elsewhere.
On the 10th January, 2006, the worker referred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 14th September, 2006.
The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was dismissed after 3 weeks in employment. Another apprentice was subsequently employed in his place. If there was a difficulty with the standard of the apprentices work, it should have been identified and rectified in the normal way.
2. It is unfair to have given up a secure position for an apprenticeship and to be subsequently let go after 3 weeks employment.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. At the time of the dismissal, an important contract had been lost which left the employer no option but to let the apprentice go. There were subsequent increases in the amount of work available but a more senior apprentice was required to carry out the work.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Claimant's grievance stems from the fact that his employment was terminated after three weeks in the employment. The Court understands why the Claimant feels aggrieved by the dismissal and the circumstances in which it came about. However, the Court accepts that the Employer found himself in unforeseen difficulties arising from the cancellation of a contract which he had expected to commence and in anticipation of which he had employed the Claimant. In these circumstances, the Court accepts that the dismissal was on grounds of redundancy and could not be regarded as unfair.
It is, however, important that there should be no suggestion that the dismissal was in any way influenced by impropriety or poor performance on the part of the Claimant. In the circumstances the Court recommends that the Employer furnish the Claimant with a suitable statement making clear that his service in the employment was entirely satisfactory.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
22nd September, 2006______________________
AH/MB.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.