Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An Engineer

A Beverage Machine Company

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00022804-001

23/10/2018

The complainant was employed by the respondent as a compliance and validation engineer on the 16th October 2017 and he was dismissed on the 24th of September 2018 with 2 weeks’ notice. He is claiming under the Industrial Relations Act that he was unfairly dismissed. The respondents case is that he was dismissed for reasons connected with his performance and lateness.

The complainant said that he moved from a job in the aerospace industry in Galway to take up a job with the respondent. The respondent makes hot water beverage systems and he had no experience in some aspects of the work. He said that he has a degree in Mechanical Engineering, but he lacked electronic training. The complainant said that at the interview for the job it was agreed by the respondent that training would be provided in number of areas where there were gaps in his knowledge.  

The complainant said that when he took up the job he was not given adequate training in electronics and standards for the electrical panels of the product and plumbing. He said that he only received 25% of the training promised and this was only provided to him a month before he was let go. He said that he had to work out what he was supposed to do on his own initiative and his line manager gave him unrealistic targets to achieve.

He said that he felt harassed by his line manager and he believed that he had a biased attitude towards him and other employees were not required to meet the same targets as he was given. He had an update meeting with his line manager in July and at that meeting he said that the manager accepted that he had not been given the training he needed. He said that he had a review meeting with his manager on the 16th of August 2018 and the line manager said that he was satisfied with his work and no issue was raised about his performance.

The complainant said that he took 2 weeks holidays at the end of August and he detected a change of attitude towards him on his return from holidays. On the 24th of September 2018 he was called to the office by his manager and dismissed. He said he was given vague reasons for the dismissal and he requested the Operations Director to reverse the decision. At a meeting with the management he was informed that he was dismissed because he was not ‘a good fit’ in the company.

The respondent submitted that the complainant was employed as an engineering graduate and was expected to have competence in the area. He was not hired as a trainee. He was hired after 2 interviews but from an early stage his work performance was not up to standard. He did not demonstrate the skills that were expected off him. He did not appear to absorb training very well and there had to be repeated explanation of important elements of the work to him.

The respondent said that the complainant was provided with external training as well as internal informal training from colleagues. He also spent several days on the shop floor as part of the development of his knowledge. The respondent said that despite all of this, the complainant failed to take on board the necessary skills and understanding of the role and it was starting to appear that he was not suitable for the job. The company acquired some technical equipment and asked him to familiarise himself with it, but he did not do so. His lack of uptake of knowledge limited his ability to undertake the work required.

The complainant argued with his supervisor about the necessity to carry out tasks assigned to him and he was negative in his tone and attitude. He was late for work on several occasions and he absented himself from work during the working day without permission.

On the 16th July 2018 the complainant’s manager called him to a meeting and gave him feedback on his performance including highlighting the gaps in his knowledge about how the company products work and lack of knowledge of the product standards. His time keeping was also raised as an issue. He was told that he would be reviewed again in a month.   The manager said that his response to the feedback was negative and he complained that he was given inadequate training. The complainant was again late for work. A follow up review was conducted by the complainant’s manager on the 13th of August 2013 and his timekeeping was again raised with him. The manager said that as the complainant was undergoing additional training he decided to give him a few more weeks to see if the situation would improve. The complainant did not make the necessary improvements and there was no realistic likelihood that he would reach the standard required. It was decided to terminate his employment and his manager told him of the decision on the 24th of September 2018. The complainant contacted the operations director, but the decision to dismiss him was confirmed.

The respondent accepted that he did not follow the company’s disciplinary procedures before dismissing the complainant. He was not warned that his employment was in jeopardy nor was he informed in writing prior to his dismissal of any issues with his work performance and he was not invited to attend a disciplinary hearing and he was not afforded an opportunity to reply

I am of the view that the procedures adopted by the respondent in terminating the complainant’s employment were seriously flawed. There is an obligation on employers to follow fair procedures and natural justice in accordance with S.I. 146/2000 –Industrial Relations Act, 1990 (Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures) (Declaration) Order, 2000.

In relation to applying fair procedures, The Labour Court in the case of Beechside Company Ltd t/a Park Hotel Kenmare and A Worker LCR211798 stated: “The Court has consistently held the view that it is imperative that an employer in a dismissal case must not only show that there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal but also that fair and proper procedures were followed before the dismissal takes place. This requirement of procedural fairness is rooted in the common law concept of natural justice.”

I am satisfied that the respondent did not comply with fair procedures and for this reason I find that the complainant was unfairly dismissed. I recommend the respondent pay the Complainant compensation in the amount of €7,000.00.

I recommend the respondent pay the Complainant compensation in the amount of €7,000.00 to resolve the dispute.