FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : CHUBB - AND - (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Dismissal
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the Company and the Union in relation to a worker who was dismissed from his employment. The worker was employed from 15th October, 2008 until 26th January, 2009 as an emergency response driver. The Company position is that the worker was dismissed as a result of several issues concerning his work performance despite having received adequate training for the position.
The Union's position is that the worker was not adequately trained in all aspects of the role and that errors were to be expected in the beginning of any new employment. The Union further contends that the worker was never made aware that his employment with the Company was in jeopardy as a result of the alleged errors made by the worker.
On the 19th November, 2009, the worker referred the matter to the Labour Cout in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on 11th August, 2010.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The worker was a new employee with the Company and did not receive adequate training in certain aspects of the work.
2 At no time was the worker informed that the errors made would result in him being dismissed from his employment.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The worker was given more training when he commenced employment with the Company than other staff members had received.
2 The errors made by the worker were of a serious nature and despite additional training and management assistance the worker's performance did not improve. In the circumstances Management had no option but to dismiss the worker.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is satisfied that the Company failed to adequately warn the Claimant that his future employment was in jeopardy before taking the decision to dismiss him.
In these circumstances the Court believes the Claimant was treated unfairly.
In all the circumstances the Court recommends that the Company offer and the Union accepts a compensatory payment of €2,000 in full and final settlement of the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
1st September 2010______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.