CD/23/403 | RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR22944 |
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 2015
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
(REPRESENTED BY MORGAN MCMANUS SOLICITORS)
AND
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY ALASTAIR PURDY & CO SOLICITORS)
DIVISION:
Chairman: | Ms Connolly |
Employer Member: | Ms Doyle |
Worker Member: | Mr Bell |
SUBJECT:
Complaint Under Section 20(1) of The Industrial Relations Act 1969
BACKGROUND:
The Worker referred this case to the Labour Court on 13 December 2023 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 14 March 2024.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court is a trade dispute about the termination of the Worker’s employment.
The Worker referred a complaint about the termination of her employment to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC). The Employer objected to a WRC Adjudication Officer investigating the complaint, as is its right. The Worker subsequently referred the complaint to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and in doing so agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
Both the Worker and the Employer attended the Labour Court hearing, with their respective representatives. The appeal before the Court is not a matter of law and the role of the Court in the hearing of industrial relations disputes is to hear the parties and give its opinion on how the matter can best be resolved.
The Worker in this case submits that she was unfairly dismissed on the grounds of performance during her probationary period. The Employer failed to comply with its own procedures under the probation policy. The Worker appealed the decision to terminate her employment to an Appeals Officer and that appeal was upheld. The Worker seeks compensation and an acknowledgment that the Employer was in breach of its own policy by failing to follow its procedures.
The Employer fully accepts and acknowledges that it did not adhere to its Probation Policy. The Employer is satisfied that the relationship between the parties has broken down irretrievably and, in such circumstances, reinstatement is not an appropriate resolution to the matter in dispute.
The Court has carefully considered the position of the parties.
The Court notes that the Employer has a comprehensive Probation Policy in place. The Employer readily admits that it did not adhere to that policy when it terminated the Worker’s employment.
This Court has consistently found that where an employer has an employment policy in place, it has an obligation to follow procedures as set down in that policy.
In this case, the Employer did not follow the probationary policy. As a result, the Court finds that the Worker was unfairly dismissed.
Having regard to the specific circumstances of this case, the Court recommends that the Employer pay to the Worker the sum of €7,500, which is equivalent to three months’ pay, as compensation in full and final settlement of the matter in dispute.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court | |
Katie Connolly | |
SOC | ______________________ |
21 March 2024 | Deputy Chairman |
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sinéad O'Connor, Court Secretary.