AD9716

FULL RECOMMENDATION CD/97/9 APPEAL DECISIONNO.AD9716 (CW 160/96) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ASSOCIATED PLASTICS LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Owens Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr Rorke

SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. CN/60/96.


BACKGROUND:

2. The appeal concerns a worker who commenced employment as a machine operative with the Company on the 13th November, 1995. He was dismissed in January, 1996. The Union claimed that the dismissal was unfair and referred the issue to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. On the 17th December, 1996 the Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation as follows:

"I recommend that the worker and the Union accept that this dismissal was not unfair".
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation).

On the 6th January, 1997 the Union appealed the Recommendation to the Labour Court. The Court heard the appeal in Tullamore on the 22nd April, 1997.


UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. The worker was employed on a one month contract basis and believed that he was progressing well in his job. There were no complaints about his work. He had left secure employment to take up the post.

2. The worker refused a Management request that he would report to them about fellow workers. Thereafter, the relationship between him and the Company deteriorated.




3. When the worker approached the Company on December, 1995 to have his contract renewed he was told he was an unsatisfactory worker. He was subsequently dismissed.

4. The worker was unfairly and arbitrarily dismissed. He was not consulted about his performance and did not receive warnings.


COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. The worker was employed on a one month's trial basis. This had been extended over the Christmas period of 1995. His employment, lasted for 7 weeks.

2. The worker's performance was unsatisfactory and he was informed of this by his production manager. The worker was a probationary employee and did not satisfy the Company with regard to his performance.

3. He was not unfairly dismissed. The worker received his statutory entitlements.



DECISION:

Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court has concluded that the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation is not unreasonable and should be upheld.

The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and so decides.



Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Evelyn Owens
30th April, 1997______________________
T.O'D./S.G.Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.