Up Arrow
 
 
Question Icon
 

Select an option from the dropdown list and press GO

 
Question Icon
 

Select an option from the dropdown list and then press GO

 
 
 

2002

Information Icon Water Mark
Up Arrow

Add to Binder allows you to add Workplace Relations content to your personal binder for viewing or printing later.

Binder icon image Binder

To access your binder, click the Binder link at the top of the page.

 
 

LCR17210

FULL RECOMMENDATION

CD/02/160
RECOMMENDATIONNO.LCR17210
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969



PARTIES :
TOTAL FITNESS
(REPRESENTED BY IVOR FITZPATRICK & COMPANY, SOLICITORS)

- AND -

A WORKER


DIVISION :

Chairman: Ms Jenkinson
Employer Member: Mr Keogh
Worker Member: Mr O'Neill
SUBJECT:
1. Dismissal.


BACKGROUND:

2. The worker concerned was employed by the Company as a Pool Operator from the 8th of October, 2001. He claims he was unfairly dismissed on the 24th of January, 2002. The Company rejects the claim stating that he had been spoken to on several occasions regarding his work performance.

The issue was referred to the Labour Court on the 19th of March, 2002, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 12th of July, 2002, the earliest date suitable to the parties. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.





WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. No indication was given to the worker concerned that his work performance was unsatisfactory. He received no verbal or written warnings.

2. The worker concerned should receive an apology, a reference and compensation.


COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. From an early stage members of management had to speak to the worker concerned on several occasions regarding his unsatisfactory work performance.

2. The Company provides a professional service to its members. The worker concerned failed to achieve the standards expected of him. He received several warnings but failed to improve and management had no choice but to dismiss him from his employment.


RECOMMENDATION:

The Court has given consideration to both the written and oral submissions of the parties.

The Court is satisfied that, while the Company had problems with the claimant's standard of performance, it did not adhere to normal disciplinary procedures when it terminated his employment. In this regard, the Court has taken account of the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures made under Section 42 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990 (S.I. No 146 of 2000) which sets out the procedural stages which an employer should follow in dealing with such matters.

Therefore, the Court recommends that the Company should pay compensation of
€1,250 to the claimant, to be accepted in full and final settlement of all claims against this Company.



Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Caroline Jenkinson
24th July, 2002______________________
G.B./D.G.Deputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.




 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Share this page

 
logo-sml
Links|About the Reform Programme|Accessibility|Privacy Policy|Disclaimer|Sitemap

Registered Address: Department of Business, Enterprise and Innovation, O'Brien Road, Carlow