FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : LINING SERVICES(WATERFORD) LTD (REPRESENTED BY JOHN GOFF, SOLICITOR) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Worker concerned was employed as an experienced Installation Technician from February, 2006 until his dismissal on the 1st September, 2006. His employment was subject to an initial probationary period of six months.
The Company stated that a number of difficulties arose in relation to the Worker's work performance and he was given a final written warning on 10th July, 2006. A further warning was issued in August, 2006, and the Worker was made aware that his employment was in jeopardy.
The Worker stated that he was not a Supervisor when the first incident occurred and was not responsible for the difficulty which arose. He was, however, a Supervisor on the other occasions. Following an incident on a farm in Cork a meeting of the team was called and the Worker was informed that he was to go. He was given one weeks' notice.
The Worker referred the claim to the Labour Court on the 26th February, 2007, 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 31st October, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union maintains that the Worker should not have received a warning following the first incident as he was not a Supervisor at the time and was not working in the area where the incident took place.
2. The Worker was dismissed without any reason being given.
3. The Company failed to follow proper procedures in dealing with the Worker's unsatisfactory work performance.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company issued a final written warning to the Worker in July following serious deficiencies at a site in Kilkenny.
2. The Worker was in a supervisory position when further difficulties arose on two other sites. He initially received a verbal warning and subsequently it was decided to terminate his contract of employment. He was given one weeks' notice .
3. The Worker did not follow instructions and did not ensure that work was carried out to an acceptable standard.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns an allegation of unfair dismissal. The Union, on behalf of the Claimant, alleges that his dismissal arose in circumstances whereby he was incorrectly accused of wrongdoing.
The Company's legal representative stated to the Court that a number of incidents led to the Claimant's dismissal and he was given prior warning that his employment was in jeopardy. He stated that the Claimant was in a supervisory position for two of the incidents. In these cases there were deficiencies in the work carried out which led to the work having to be redone.
The Court is satisfied that the process followed by the Company in this case did not fully comply with the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures (S.I. No 146 of 2000). Where an employee's employment is in jeopardy because of a failure to maintain acceptable standards of performance or behaviour it is imperative that proper procedures are strictly followed and the Court is not satisfied that the Company fully complied with the appropriate procedures in this case. However, the Court does not acquit the Worker of responsibility for the deficiencies in work which gave rise to the problems caused for the Company's business.
Consequently, in all the circumstances of this case, the Court recommends that an award of compensation is appropriate and recommends that the Company should pay the sum of €500 to the Claimant, in full and final settlement of the claim.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
21st November, 2007______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.