FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : THELINOR LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY ESA CONSULTANTS) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY HARRISON O' DOWD, SOLICITORS) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the manner in which the Worker's employment was terminated. The Worker claims that he was unfairly dismissed. The Company claims that the Worker's employment was terminated because it deemed his performance to have been unsuitable. The Worker referred this case to the Labour Court on 8th February, 2011, 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 1st March, 2012.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company never informed the Worker that it had issues with his performance.
2. The Worker was never afforded natural justice by the Company.
3.The Company's actions caused the Worker considerable financial loss and he should be compensated accordingly.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Worker was absent from work on several occasions for various reasons.
2. When at work, the Worker's performance was deemed unsatisfactory.
3.The Worker's employment was terminated during his probationary period.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns a claim of unfair dismissal by the Claimant. The Claimant commenced working with the Company on 3rdSeptember 2010 when the Company took over the contract from the previous Company which provided a cable television, telephone and broadband installation service. His employment was terminated along with six others on 15thOctober 2010. The Company stated that the Claimant’s work performance did not meet the standards required.
Having considered the positions of both parties as expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court notes that a short while after taking over the contract the employer discovered that he did not require the number of technicians he had taken on initially.
The Court finds that management’s failure to alert the Claimant that his employment was in jeopardy was a serious flaw in its procedures. In essence the Court finds that the termination of the Claimant’s employment was substantially and procedurally flawed and not in compliance with the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures S.I. No 146 of 2000.
The Court recommends that the Claimant should be compensated by the payment of €7,500 in full and final settlement of his claim before the Court.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
12th March, 2012______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.