FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MIELE IRELAND LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the manufacture of high quality domestic appliances and commercial equipment. The following is the Company's case: the worker was employed as a Trainee Service Technician on the 1st April, 2008, on a 6-month probationary period. His training period was to last approximately 12 months and he was to undergo training in the Company workshop, assist Engineers in customers' homes and attend various group training programmes. On 25th April, 2008, the worker was handed a copy of the Employee Handbook which formed part of his terms and conditions of employment. Page 17 of the Handbook deals specifically with the Company's policy in relation to Dress and Personal Appearance, particularly in dealing with customers. The Company had a problem with the worker in that he had a visible tattoo on his forearm. At the time the worker only had short-sleeved shirts. The Company claims that it ordered five long sleeved shirts for him. (The worker claims that he only received one such shirt.) The worker had to be spoken to a second time in May, 2008, about wearing a short-sleeved shirt. Another incident took place on 2nd June, 2008 when the worker was due to attend with an engineer at a number of customers' houses. Again he was wearing a short-sleeved shirt, had a large diamond earring and had his hair shaved with large patterns running through it. The worker had been previously warned that his contract of employment would be terminated if he continued to ignore the Company's policy on dress and appearance. In the event the Company decided that the worker was not suitable for the position and was he dismissed.
The worker referred his case to the Labour Court on the 21st November, 2008, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 15th January, 2009. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was only issued with one long-sleeved shirt and he obviously could not wear it five days per week. He did not receive a copy of the Company's Employee Handbook nor was he warned about any dress code.
2. On the day he was dismissed the worker offered to have his hair cut again but was told that the decision to dismiss him was already made. The earring he was wearing was a small stud, not a large diamond, as claimed by the Company.
3. The worker was not given any verbal or written warnings about his appearance. If he had he would have taken note of it. The first time anything was said to him was on the day he was dismissed.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company must ensure that all representatives maintain the highest dress and personal appearance standards. The reason for the dismissal was not the worker's haircut, it was that he had been warned at least twice before about his appearance but did nothing about it.
2. The worker was personally given five long-sleeved shirts by the Service Manager but continued to wear the short-sleeved shirt which left his tattoo visible.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns a claim of unfair dismissal by a worker. The Company denies that he was unfairly dismissed.
The Court has considered the oral and written submissions of both parties, and while there was a conflict of evidence on some of the issues, it is satisfied that the worker was warned on three separate occasions prior to his dismissal about the requirements for high standards of dress and personal appearance. The Court notes that the dismissal occurred within his probationary period, and was due to his lack of compliance with the Company's standards, despite the situation having been made clear to him.
In all the circumstances, the Court does not find that the dismissal was unfair. Therefore, the worker's claim fails.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
26th January, 2009.______________________
CON.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.