FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : THE LISHEEN MINE (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal Of Recommendation Of A Rights Commissioner R-066328-Ir-08/Gc
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue before the Court involves a claim by the Union on behalf of its member that he was unfairly dismissed by the Company. The worker commenced employment with the Company in January 2008 on a one year fixed term contract. While on probation the Company dismissed the worker. It is the Union's claim that it's member was not afforded fair procedures. The Company's position is that the worker's performance was not in line with Company standards.
The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation On the 9th December, 2008 the Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation as follows:
" The Company had grounds to be dissatisfied with (worker named)'s performance and conduct during his probationary period. However, the Company did not afford (Worker named) the opportunity to be represented or heard at the meeting on 26th May 2008 when he was dismissed. Further, he was not given a letter outlining the reasons for his dismissal, and if he could avail of an appeal mechanism. He was not given any written warnings before the dismissal. The Company does not seem to have considered extending (worker named)'s probation. I therefore find that the Company have not conducted the procedure of dismissing (worker named) in a fair manner.
I note that the Company have paid (worker named) three weeks pay plus bonus over and above his notice entitlement in the contract of employment, thereby mitigating his loss following his dismissal between May and September 2008. In all circumstances, therefore I recommend that (worker named) be compensated in the amount €3,000."
On the 30th December, 2008 the Union, on behalf of its member, appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 12th May, 2009.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 During the dismissal procedures, the worker was given no opportunity to challenge the reasons behind the Company's decision to terminate his employment.
2 The worker was dismissed without prior warnings or any indication that he was not meeting the required standard. The letter of dismissal did not even outline the reasons for the termination of his employment.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 Following a disciplinary meeting with the worker, it was decided that his performance was unsatisfactory and not in line with Company standards.
2 The Company's confidence in the worker was seriously undermined by his repeated mistakes and behaviour. The Company completed a fair review of his probationary period and concluded that the worker was unsuited to the role he was employed to fulfil.
DECISION:
The Court is satisfied that the conclusions and recommendation of the Rights Commissioner are balanced and reasonable having regard to all the circumstances of the case.
Accordingly, the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is affirmed and the appeal is disallowed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
25th May, 2009______________________
DNChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.