LCR16044

FULL RECOMMENDATION CD/98/417 RECOMMENDATIONNO.LCR16044 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : PANELLING CENTRE LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr O'Neill

SUBJECT:
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.





BACKGROUND:

2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company as a sales assistant in October, 1997. His employment was terminated on the 10th of July, 1998. He claimed that he had been unfairly dismissed and referred the matter to the Labour Court on the 10th of July, 1998 under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

The Company's position is that the worker's performance was unsatisfactory and he was therefore, dismissed during his period of probation.

A Labour Court hearing took place on the 27th of November, 1998. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.



WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. No valid reason was put forward by the Company for the worker's dismissal. He was called to a meeting and informed that management was unhappy with his attitude and that his employment was terminated. Management refused to elaborate further.

2. The Company was unable to substantiate its allegation that it has received complaints concerning the worker's attitude.

3. The worker had a good working relationship with the customers who often complemented him on his work.

4. The worker received no complaints from management regarding his work performance. His dismissal was not justified and was totally unexpected.


COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. The worker was dismissed for the following reasons:-

- His approach to both staff and customers was negative and unhelpful.
- He had a disruptive influence on other members of the staff and on occasions he was abusive towards management.
- He failed on a number of occasions to carry out instructions from management.
- He reported late for work on a regular basis.

2. The worker failed to meet Company standards and was dismissed during the period of his probation.


RECOMMENDATION:

The Court is satisfied that the manner of dismissal was unfair in this case.

No substantial evidence was presented by the Company to justify its decision.

The employee had no written contract of employment, was given no chance to refute the allegations made against him, and no grievance procedure was available to him.

The Court, having considered all the information supplied finds the manner of his dismissal to be unfair and recommends that the Company pay the claimant £500 in compensation.



Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Finbarr Flood
10th December, 1998______________________
F.B./D.T.Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.