FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ALDI STORES (IRELAND) LTD (REPRESENTED BY VINCENT AND BEATTY SOLICITORS) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY GILL TRAYNOR SOLICITOR) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Unfair Dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the Company and the worker in relation alleged unfair dismissal. The worker's position is that he was summarily dismissed by the Company without being afforded the right to fair procedures. The Company's position is that the worker was dismissed within the probationary period as he did not meet the appropriate standards required of him.
On the 17th December 2012, the worker referred the matter to the Labour Court 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 the 18th April 2013.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker does not accept the reasons provided by Management for his dismissal. There were minor errors made by the worker in course of his employment, but these were not of a serious nature. Management should have pointed out the errors to the worker and offered him any necessary advice and guidance. The manner of the dismissal is completely unfair and without justification.
2. He was given no notice of the disciplinary meeting, no opportunity to respond, no right to representation, all at variance with the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures (S.I. No 146 of 2000)
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker did not meet the standards required of him. He received continuous guidance and training from Management yet his performance did not improve.
2. The worker was not summarily dismissed. He was dismissed after many meetings with Management and having failed to meet the standards required of him during the probationary period.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Worker in this case was summoned to a meeting with management on 22ndSeptember 2012 and informed that his employment was being terminated with immediate effect. In justifying the dismissal the Company relies on a number of claimed shortcomings in the Claimant’s performance which, it contends, demonstrated that he was unsuitable for the role to which he was appointed. The Claimant was on probation at the time of his dismissal.
The Company accepts that the decision to dismiss the Claimant was taken before the meeting of 22ndSeptember. It is also clear that the Claimant was never informed that his continued employment was in jeopardy nor was he informed of the grounds upon which his dismissal was in contemplation before a final decision was taken.
It is not the function of this Court to form an opinion as to whether the Company was objectively correct in concluding that the Claimant was unsuitable for continued employment. Rather, its role is to establish if the Company acted fairly in reaching that conclusion.
The Company contends that it is not bound by its own disciplinary procedure or by the terms of the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures (S.I. No. 146 of 2000) in the case of an employee on probation. The Court does not accept that proposition. In the Court’s opinion employers are obliged to act fairly in all situations and are not relieved of that obligation during an employee’s probationary period.
The Court is satisfied that in this case there was a manifest failure to observe the basis requirements of procedural fairness in reaching the decision to terminate the Claimant’s employment. At a minimum he should have been informed that his continued employment was in question for the reasons relied upon and given a reasonable opportunity to address the Company’s concerns before a final decision was taken. The failure of the Company in that regard rendered the dismissal procedurally unfair.
In the circumstances the Court recommends that the Company pay the Claimant compensation in the amount of €2,000 in full and final settlement of all claims arising from his dismissal.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
28th May 2013.______________________
AH.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.