FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : SUPERMAC'S IRELAND LIMITED - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Termination of employment during the probationary period.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns the dismissal of the Worker during his probationary period.
The Worker was hired as a Store Manager in January 2019. He successfully completed his training and was assigned to manage his own restaurant. On 5 July 2019, he was dismissed without any warning.
On the 13 November 2019, the Worker referred the dispute 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 10 March 2010. The Employer did not attend the hearing.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Worker said that his training period was very positive and that he was assigned to manage his own restaurant.
2. On the 5 July 2019, he was very shocked when, without any previous feedback, he was told that his probationary period was unsuccessful.
3. At no point was there any indication that he would be unsuccessful in his probationary period.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court was brought under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 and concerns a claim of unfair dismissal.
The Employer did not attend the hearing.
The Claimant commenced employment as a Store Manager on 16th January 2019, his employment was terminated on 5th July 2019. He told the Court that he underwent a six-week training course and having successfully completed the course, he was then assigned to a restaurant as Store Manager of that venue. He said that without warning he was invited to attend a meeting and also received a letter from his Area Manager on 5th July 2019 informing him that a decision had been made to terminate his employment“due to unsuccessful probationary period”.He said that he was shocked by this development as he had been given no warning, no performance discussions, no progress talks. Rather he said that he had only received positive feedback regarding his performance. The Claimant said that management were not satisfied that he was engaged in study for exams and maintained that he was overqualified for the position.
Having considered the Claimant’s submission, the Court is satisfied that his dismissal was unfair, devoid of any procedures and taken for no apparent reasons.
In all the circumstances, the Court recommends that the Company should pay him the sum of €7,500 in compensation for his unfair dismissal, within six weeks from the date of this Recommendation.
The Court so Recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
CR______________________
23 March, 2020Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.