FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : GREEN ENERGY LTD (REPRESENTED BY JOHN P.PRIOR & COMPANY, SOLICITORS) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY KEITH WALSH SOLICITOR) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Dismissal
BACKGROUND:
2. The Claimant was employed by the Respondent as of 18th March 2008 as a lorry driver. On 5th June 2008 the Claimant was seriously injured in an accident at work which he alleges was the fault of the Respondent. On 13th June 2008, while recovering from the injuries sustained in this accident at work, the Claimant received his P45 in the post indicating a cessation date of 6th June 2008. The Claimant alleges that he was unfairly dismissed.
The Claimant referred his case to the Labour Court on 12th February, 2009, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Worker agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 30th of June, 2009. The Employer failed to attend the hearing.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Prior to this incident the Claimant had a good employment record of driving trucks for 14 years.
2. The Claimant had informed the Respondent of various health and saftey concerns and believes this was a contributing factor in his unfair dismissal.
3.At no time had the Respondent informed the Claimant that his job was in jeopardy.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Employer failed to attend the hearing for reasons that were given in correspondence to the Court. The Court regards it as regrettable that the employer decided not to avail of the opportunity to put its side of the case.
Having heard the uncontested evidence of the Claimant the Court is satisfied that the manner of his dismissal fell far short of the standard of fairness that could be expected from a reasonable employer. The Claimant was given no reason for the dismissal nor was he given any opportunity to address any concerns that the employer may have had concerning his work performance. This is contrary to the most basic requirements of procedural fairness and good practice. It is also contrary to the provisions of the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedure (S.I. No. 146 of 2000). That Code of Practice is made pursuant to s. 42 of the Industrial Relations Act 1990 and the Court is required by s. 42(4) of that Act to have regard to its provisions in deciding on any case to which it relates. For all of these reasons the Court finds that the dismissal of the Claimant was unfair.
The Court was told that the Claimant was unable to work due to injuries sustained at work since his dismissal. Any loss of earnings suffered in consequence of his accident is the subject of seperate proceedings and cannot be taken into account in this case. In these circumstances the Court must hold that the Claimant did not suffer any loss of earnings in consequence of the dismissal.
Nevertheless the Claimant is entitled to compensation for the manner of his dismissal. The Court recommends that he be paid compensation in the amount of €3,000 on that account.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
20th July, 2009______________________
JMcCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.