LCR23071

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: Section 20(1) Industrial Relations Act 1969 (Referral under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969)

BACKGROUND:

The Worker referred this case to the Labour Court on 23 July 2024 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 15 November 2024.

RECOMMENDATION:

At the start of the hearing the Court felt it prudent to outline for the parties the nature of a hearing under s20 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969.  In particular, the fact that it was a voluntary process and that only the Worker is required to agree to be bound by the recommendation.   Also, the fact that there is no law or legal rights involved in these cases, and evidence is not taken. 

The Worker in her submission identified what she believed to be breaches of various Employment Rights Acts and stated that she had been advised by the WRC that she should take a section 20 (1) case. She was not aware that it was not binding on the Employer and or legally enforceable.

 It was the Worker’s submission that she commenced employment on the 11th September 2023 on a full- time contract.   The only training she received was some on the job training and she felt she was meeting the requirements of the job.

It was her submission that she was only spoken to once by her Employer and that was in respect of how she interacted with other staff. She was never spoken to about her performance. The Worker stated that she was very good with customers and had increased their customer base. The Worker stated that she was invited to a meeting on the 31st January 2024 and presented with a termination letter which came as a shock to her.

The Employer stated that they are a small privately owned and funded company.  The Workers recruitment and contract was subject to the successful completion of a six-month probationary period. The Worker was let go before the expiry of the six months period as she did not successfully complete her probationary period.

The Worker was spoken to on the 23rd October and the 14th November 2023 about the need to improve her behaviour and the manner in which she communicated with the team. On the 19th of December 2023 during her monthly review, she was verbally informed that she needed to improve her performance. Despite numerous efforts from the Employer there continued to be issues with her capabilities and competence to perform her duties, poor performance against defined monthly objectives and unprofessional and poor behaviour towards customers and the rest of the team.  On that basis it was decided to terminate her employment. She was invited to a meeting on the 31st January 2024 and was presented with a letter of termination and her last payslip which included a weeks’ notice pay.

The Employer confirmed to the Court that they were familiar with S.I. No. 146 of 2000 Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures (Declaration) Order 2000. They also confirmed that the Worker had not been told in advance of the meeting that she could have representation at the meeting as defined by the Code or the purpose of the meeting as required by the Code of Practice.

The Court having carefully considered the submission and noting that the Employer was not in full compliance with the Code of Practise recommends that the Employer pay the Worker compensation of two weeks salary.

 The Court so Recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Louise O'Donnell
ÁM	______________________
22nd November 2024	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Áine Maunsell, Court Secretary.