LCR22479

FULL RECOMMENDATION

SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969

PARTIES :

PVH UK LTD
(REPRESENTED BY NATHAN'S EMPLOYMENT LAW CONSULTANCY)

- AND -

A WORKER)

DIVISION :

SUBJECT:

1.Unfairly Dismissed on both a substantive and procedural basis


BACKGROUND:

2.The Worker referred this case to the Labour Court on 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 11 October 2021.


RECOMMENDATION:

The Court has had the benefit of a written submission from the worker in this case and an opportunity to engage with her and her representative at a hearing.

The employer did not attend the hearing of the Court but did provide documentation and an account of the matter in dispute.

The worker was dismissed following a “Probationary Review” Meeting. Her contract of employment made provision for a number of “Probationary Review” meetings but the meeting convened on 13^thFebruary 2019 was the first such meeting convened in respect of the worker after approximately six month’s employment.

The employer side documentation provided to the Court confirms that the meeting was a“Probationary Review”meeting but also confirms that it had been organised“in order to discuss a collective grievance that was raised confidentially by 7 of your direct reports whereby three main issues were raised…”

It is clear that the worker had no notice in advance of the “Probationary Review” meeting that complaints made against her by colleagues were to be discussed. She was in effect deprived of the opportunity to know the case against her and of an opportunity to prepare and provide a full defence.

The Court concludes that the meeting of 13^thFebruary 2019 was not in any real sense a “Probationary Review” meeting, but rather was a disciplinary meeting convened without advance indication of that fact and was intended to discuss complaints against the worker made confidentially by colleagues. That meeting resulted in the immediate dismissal of the worker.

In the view of the Court, the procedure followed by the employer in arriving at a decision to dismiss the worker was devoid of fair procedure or natural justice and took no account of the statutoryCode of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures [S.I. No. 146 of 2000].

In all of the circumstances, the Court concludes that the decision to dismiss the worker was unfair and unreasonable. The Court, as a result, recommends that the employer should compensate the worker by payment of €5,000 in full and final settlement of the claim before the Court.

The Court so recommends.

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David Campbell, Court Secretary.