FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ELEMENTER DESIGN LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY J.F. PROCTOR & CO., SOLICITORS) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Worker joined the Company on 14th April, 2008, in the role of Operations Manager. His contract of employment provided for a probationary period of"not less than six months",however, his employment was terminated on 23rd October, 2008. As a result the Union is seeking compensation in redress for the anger and disappointment suffered by the Worker.
On the 18th June, 2009 the Union referred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 26th January, 2010.
The Union agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Worker's probationary period ended on the 10th October, 2008 without any formal review taking place. On 13th October the Worker became seriously ill and was deemed unfit for work from 14th until 20th October which was later extended to 3rd November by his GP. It was during this medically certified absence that he received a letter of immediate dismissal.
2. The Worker was never notified of any problems arising from his performance and thus the dismissal is contrary to the principles of natural justice and fair procedures.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. During the Worker's probationary period his attendance at work wasunsatisfactory and in keeping with his contract the Company terminated his employment and paid him one weeks wage's in lieu of notice.
2. The Worker does not qualify under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977-2007.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns a claim of unfair dismissal. The Company’s legal representative stated to the Court that the Claimant’s employment was terminated as he had not successfully completed his probationary period.
On the information available to it the Court is satisfied that the Claimant had completed his probation on 10th October, 2008. The Court does not accept that the employer was entitled to retrospectively extend this period.
In all the circumstances the Court is satisfied that the manner in which the Claimant was treated fell far short of the standards which would be expected from a reasonable employer. It is clear that the employer decided to terminate the Claimant's employment without affording him any opportunity to address any concerns which they may have had. This was grossly unfair and contravened the Statutory Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures (S.I. 146 of 2000).
The Court is satisfied that the decision was unfair on both procedural and substantive grounds.
Consequently, the Court is of the view that the peremptory dismissal of the Claimant was unacceptable and recommends that the Claimant should be compensated by the payment of €20,000 in full and final settlement of the claim before the Court.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
29th January, 2010______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.