FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : VOXPRO LIMITED - AND - A WORKER DIVISION :
SUBJECT: 1.Unfair Dismissal The Worker was employed by Voxpro Limited (‘the Company’) as a Technical Support Specialist from 29 July 2019 until his dismissal on 15 January 2020. His base salary was €24,000.00 per annum. The Worker was recruited on a permanent, full-time basis subject to satisfactory completion of a probationary period. In that regard, the Worker’s written contract of employment provides as follows: “Your employment will be subject to the satisfactory completion of a six month (sic) probation period. Your performance will be reviewed on an ongoing basis during this time to assess your performance and suitability. The Company reserves the right at its discretion to extend this probationary period. Either party may terminate the employment relationship on one week’s notice in writing at any time during the probationary period or at the end of this period without either party having to give reasons.” The Worker was invited to attend an early probationary review meeting on 15 January 2020 due to concerns the Company had in relation to his attendance and lateness record. The Worker had had two previous ‘Documented Conversations’ (on 28 October 2019 and 9 January 2020) about his attendance record. The Worker was accompanied at the meeting of 15 January 2020 and he was advised in advance that a possible outcome of the meeting could be the termination of his employment as provided for in the Company’s abridged Corrective Action procedure. He was invited, in the course of that meeting, to offer an explanation for one day’s absence (on 25 September 2019) and for the five occasions in 2019 on which he had attended late for his shift (1 August, 7 October, 14 October, 12 December and 16 December). Having heard and considered the Worker’s explanations, the Worker’s Team Manager and the HR Business Partner who chaired the meeting made a decision to terminate the Worker’s employment due to an unacceptable level of non-compliance with the Company’s Attendance Policy. He was paid two weeks’ pay in lieu of notice. The outcome of the probationary review meeting was subsequently confirmed in a letter dated 22 January 2020 which also formally advised the Worker of his right to appeal the Company’s decision. The Worker availed himself of the right of appeal. An appeal meeting was held on 9 March 2020. The Company’s decision to dismiss the Worker was upheld. Submissions The Company was not represented at the within hearing. The Worker submits that his dismissal was ‘unfair’ and ‘illegal’ and that he didn’t’ receive all salary payments due to him for January 2020. The Court has fully considered all documents submitted by the Worker in support of his complaint. Those documents include: the Worker’s contract of employment dated 26 July 2019; a detailed written note of the probationary review meeting of 15 January 2020 and the Company’s letter of 22 January 2020 outlining the decision taken at the meeting of 15 January 2020 and the reasons for that decision. On the basis of the foregoing and the Worker’s verbal submissions to the Court, the Court finds that the Worker’s dismissal during his probationary period was substantially justified and effected by the Company in accordance with fair procedures generally and specifically in accordance with its own written policies and procedures that had been notified to the Worker in advance. The Court also finds that the Worker was paid in full all salary payments due to him, including the two weeks’ pay in lieu of notice the Company had undertaken to pay. The Court, therefore, finds the Worker’s complaints are not well-founded. The Court so recommends.
NOTE Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Heather Murray, Court Secretary. |
