FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MICHAEL GUINEYS (REPRESENTED BY MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES (IRELAND) LTD) - AND - A WORKER. (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Alleged Unfair Dismissal and Company refusal to engage with Union in compliance with S.I. 146 of 2000 (Code of Practice on Voluntary Dispute Resolution.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case concerns a dispute between the Company and the Union in relation to the alleged unfair dismissal of a security officer employed in Michael Guineys, Limerick.
The Union's claim is that the worker was dismissed unfairly on the basis that, while on probation, he was let go without an opportunity to address issues relation to his alleged unsuitability to the position.
Management's position is that the worker was being assessed during the probationary period and was found to be unsuitable for the role of Security Officer within that timeframe. Management further contended that the worker had been warned of issues relating to his performance on many occasions and improvements were not forthcoming.
The matter was referred to the Labour Court on the 23rd of January, 2009, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was not afforded natural justice as he was dismissed without being afforded the opportunity to address the issues surrounding his alleged unsuitability.
2. The Company refused to engage with the Union in relation to the workers dismissal and therefore refused to abide by Statutory Instrument S.I. 146 of 2000 Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures.This is unacceptable and without justification.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was dismissed on the basis that during probation it became clear that the was not suitable for the role of Security Officer.
2. Management discussed the workers performance on many occasions and informed him that improvements were required. The worker did not, however, improve in the areas identified.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court is satisfied that there was an absence of fair procedures in arriving at the decision to terminate the Claimant's employment. In particular the Company failed to adequately warn the Claimant that his future employment was in jeopardy because of the various performance related issues referred to in the course of the hearing.
In the circumstances the Court recommends that the Claimant be paid an amount equal to one month's pay in settlement of his claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
15th June, 2009.______________________
AH.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.