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

 
 
 

2003

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.

 
 

LCR17406

FULL RECOMMENDATION

CD/02/501
RECOMMENDATIONNO.LCR17406
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969



PARTIES :
EURO CAR PARKS (IRELAND) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY RAYMOND QUINN SOLICITORS)

- AND -

A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)


DIVISION :

Chairman: Ms Jenkinson
Employer Member: Mr Keogh
Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.


BACKGROUND:

2. The Company owns, runs and manages car parking facilities throughout Ireland.

The worker concerned was employed by the Company as a Patrol Officer at its premises at Harvey's Quay, Limerick from the 12th of November, 2001. He claims he was unfairly dismissed on the 27th of April, 2002. The Company rejects the claim stating that his performance was unsatisfactory and he was unsuitable for the position.

The issue was referred to the Labour Court on the 17th of September, 2002, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 5th of February, 2003, the earliest date suitable to the parties.

The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.

UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. For the first number of months the worker concerned had no difficulties with his employer. He had a good working relationship with his colleagues and immediate supervisors. He was complimented on several occasions by Management in relation to job performance.

2. The worker concerned was not made aware that his performance did not meet the standards required by the Company.

3. The dismissal was unfair and the worker should be awarded appropriate compensation for the loss of his job.

COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. During his employment the worker concerned received regular training and was assessed on a monthly basis. He was advised of areas where improvement was needed.

2. At all times the worker was made aware that his standard of performance was unsatisfactory. He was given every opportunity to improve but did not do so.

3. The worker's employment was terminated in a fair and proper fashion following five months of training, advice and motivation. Every effort was made to assist him in order to improve his standard of performance.

RECOMMENDATION:

Having examined the submissions of both parties and considered the oral evidence presented at the hearing, the Court is satisfied that there were not sufficient grounds for a claim of unfair dismissal and accordingly, does not recommend concession of the claim.



Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Caroline Jenkinson
13th February, 2003______________________
GB/MB.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