FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : AMEN (REPRESENTED BY PATRICIA HOLOHAN & COMPANY, SOLICITORS) - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. Amen is a voluntary group which was founded in December, 1997. It provides a confidential helpline, a support service and information for male victims of domestic abuse. The worker concerned joined the Company in August, 2007, as a support worker and was dismissed on the 4th July, 2008. He was on a 6 months' probationary period which was extended for a further 6 months. The Company claims that the reason for the dismissal was that the worker failed to discharge his duties to a satisfactory level. The worker denies this and maintains that he was unfairly dismissed, mainly as a result of the Company's director interfering in his work.
The worker referred his case to the Labour Court on the 5th November, 2008, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 13th January, 2009. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker had 26 years' experience in this area of work and he carried out his duties with the Company extremely well.The worker's manager was happy with his work. His main problem was with the Company's director who constantly interfered in and monitored his work (details supplied to the Court) making it impossible for him to carry out his duties properly.
2. The worker had only one appraisal which took place after four months and he was commended for his work by his manager and the director.
3. Despite complaining to his manager on a number of occasions conditions did not improve. Morale was very low among the rest of the staff.
4. The worker received a letter on 4th July, 2008, dismissing him without fair procedure or natural justice.As a result he was extremely upset.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In accordance with the parties' employment contract the Company reserved the right to terminate the contract"at any time during the probationary period and to extend the probationary period".The worker behaved in an unprofessional manner in his dealings with clients. He was also guilty of intimidating and harassing various female colleagues.
2. The worker behaved in an inappropriate manner at a social event at Christmas 2007, something to which he admits. This incident caused serious embarrassment to the Company.
3. The worker sought to undermine and speak in a derogatory manner about the Company's director.
4. Following a meeting of the Company's Executive Commitee on 17th June, 2008, the worker was served with a verbal and written warning about his overall conduct.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the oral and written submissions of the parties. The Court feels that while there were obvious difficulties in the working relationship between the parties, however, the procedures adopted in the dismissal proceedings, and the particular lack of provisions for representation or appeal, render the dismissal unfair.
On the basis that the claimant may have contributed, in part, to the circumstances surrounding his dismissal, the Court measures the appropriate level of compensation at €8000 and so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
27th January, 2009.______________________
CON.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.