LCR22788

1.Complaint Under Section 20(1) Of The Industrial Relations Act 1969

BACKGROUND:

2.This dispute concerns a complaint in relation to treatment by the company. The Worker referred this case to the Labour Court on 9 March 2023 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 20 June 2023.

RECOMMENDATION:

The Worker commenced employment with this employer on the 19^thOctober 2022 under a solicitor training contract. He was unilaterally dismissed by the Employer on the 3^rdFebruary 2023.

The Representative for the Worker submitted to the Court that he was dismissed without any recourse to fair procedure or any procedure at all. The Worker was summoned to a meeting in a room in the Court of Criminal Justice and was informed by his Employer that he was being dismissed with immediate effect. The Worker was not given any advance notice of the purpose of the meeting or of the fact that his job was on the line.

The Employer failed to comply with the minimal requirements set out in S.I. No. 146/2000 Code of Practise on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures in coming to the decision to dismiss. The dismissal of the Worker not only affected his ability to earn but also impacted on his ability to complete his solicitor training. At the time of his dismissal the Worker’s salary was €37,000.

The Representative for the Employer submitted that there had been issues with the Worker from early on in his employment and they had introduced weekly meetings to try and assist him. As a busy legal practise, they felt they had tried to support him but that it was not working out. They accept that the requirements of the Code of Practise in terms of notifying him of what the meeting was about and affording him an opportunity to be accompanied were not complied with.

The Representative for the Employer submitted that the Worker had been given two verbal warnings prior to his dismissal. However, in response to a query from the Court they accepted there was no record of these verbal warnings and, at the time they were alleged to have been given, the Worker was not told he was being given a verbal warning. They also confirmed to the Court that the Employer did not have a disciplinary procedure, and that the Worker had not been supplied with a written statement of terms and conditions of employment.

The representative for the Employer made an application to have the Employer’s name anonymised on the Recommendation. This application was strongly opposed by the Workers representative.

Discussion and Recommendation.

The Court considered the application for anonymisation but could see no basis for departing from its normal practise of naming the employer.

The fact that the Employer is a small solicitor firm does not take from the requirements to afford their Workers fair process. Giving a Worker a verbal warning, but not telling them that they were getting same, defeats the purpose of the warning. It is clear from the submissions both oral and written that the Worker in this case was not afforded any process or opportunity to engage with the Employer as required under S.I. No. 146/2000. The Court recommends that the Employer pay the Worker compensation of €10,000.

The Court so Recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Louise O'Donnell
AR	______________________
17 July 2023	Deputy Chairman