LCR21831

The matter before the Court relates to the dismissal of the Claimant while on probation. The Court notes the considerable confusion about certain matters presented in the course of the hearing including, for example, whether the Respondent operates an ‘employee of the month’ scheme.

It is common case that the parties engaged on a weekly basis throughout the Claimant’s employment to discuss his performance. It also appears to be common case that the Claimant was involved in an incident on 15^thMarch involving an allegation of verbal abuse. It is also common case that there were some issues in terms of the Claimant’s engagement with two supervisors.

This matter comes before the Court under the Industrial Relations Act and not the Unfair Dismissals Act. To that extent the Court is not required to make findings of fact or to purport to make a finding as regards the statutory fairness or unfairness of the dismissal.

The Respondent submitted that the Claimant was dismissed during his probationary period for poor performance, the incident on 15^thMarch 2018 and his failure to accept the lawful instructions of supervisors. The dismissal occurred on 23^rdMarch 2018.

The Court, on the basis of the submissions received, is unable to form the view that the Respondent behaved unreasonably in dismissing the Claimant. The Court does however note that the dismissal followed a meeting between the Claimant and the Respondent on 22^ndMarch 2018. It is accepted by the Respondent that the Claimant was not advised in advance or at all that the meeting of 22^ndMarch 2018 could lead to his dismissal or that he could be accompanied by a representative at that meeting. It is clear also that the letter of termination did not set out the reasons for dismissal which have been advanced by the Respondent at the hearing of the Court.

The Court concludes that, even where the matter arises after short service and during probation, a worker whose employment is under threat is entitled to fair procedure and in particular to be made aware in advance of the purpose of a meeting which could lead to his dismissal and to be advised that he could be accompanied by a representative. The Court finds that the procedure employed by the Respondent lacked fairness in that respect and in that the contentions which gave rise to the possibility of dismissal were not provided to the Claimant in advance of the meeting of 22^ndMarch 2018.

The Claimant submitted to the Court that his primary objective at the hearing was to understand the reason for his dismissal. This objective has been achieved. In all the circumstances however, the Court finds that the failings in the procedure employed by the Respondent were significant and consequently that the Claimant should be compensated for the effect upon him of such failings notwithstanding any contribution, which the Court finds to have been substantial, by him to his dismissal.

The Court recommends that the Respondent should make a payment to the Claimant of €1,000 in full and final settlement of the matter before the Court.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Kevin Foley
21 November 2018______________________
MNChairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Neville, Court Secretary.