FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : BATHMAN LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY REDMOND & CO SOLICITORS) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY DOYLES SOLICITORS) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Alleged Unfair Dismissal
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the worker and Bathman Ltd in relation to alleged unfair dismissal. The Company is located in County Wexford and sells bathroom appliances and related products.The dispute in question relates to a former employee who was employed with the Company from 14th November, 2005 until 17th December, 2005.
It is alleged by the employer that the worker gave discounts to customers that were not approved by management and that errors had also occurred which had resulted in financial losses to the Company. The worker is claiming that he was dismissed unfairly as there had been no previous issues regarding his performance. He also claims that he was never informed that his continued employment with the Company was in question.
The worker referred the dispute to the Labour Court on 3rd May, 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 19th September, 2007.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The worker was dismissed unfairly from his employment, and without adequate notice.
2The worker left his previous employment to take up the position with the Company and had expected that the position would last longer than one month.
3 There were never any issues regarding the workers performance and the Sales Manager, who was away at the time of the dismissal had not conveyed any problems to the owners with regard to the workers performance.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The worker gave discounts which were not approved by management, which impacted on the Company's sales figures. There were also other errors which resulted in financial loss to the Company
2 The worker misrepresented himself at interview claiming to be experienced in areas of business that were subsequently proven to be incorrect.
3 At the time of dismissal the worker understood and accepted the reasons why his employment with the Company was being terminated.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is satisfied that the Claimant was not provided with any fair or reasonable opportunity to address the concerns which the Company had in relation to his work performance.
In particular the employer failed to advise the Claimant in clear and unequivocal terms that his continued employment was in jeopardy.
In the Court's view the absence of procedural fairness in the process which lead to the decision to dismiss the claimant contravened the provisions of the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures, S.I. 146 of 2000. The Court is required by s42(4) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990 to take account of a Code of Practice in any case in which it is relevant.
In all the circumstances of this case the Court is satisfied that the dismissal of the Claimant was unfair. The Court believes that the Claimant could reasonably have expected a minimum of three months employment over which his suitability for the post in question would have been assessed. Accordingly it believes that he should be paid compensation approximating to the equivalent of three months salary for the effects of the dismissal. The Court measures compensation at €5,250 and recommends that the Respondent pays compensation to the Claimant in that amount.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
2nd October 2007______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.