This website contains decisions and determinations of both the Labour Court and the WRC. It also contains decisions and recommendations of the Equality Tribunal since 1996 and post 2007 determinations of the Employment Appeals Tribunal. For more information click here

  Return to Search

LCR22301

FULL RECOMMENDATION


CD/20/298
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR22301

SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969


PARTIES :
C&W O'BRIEN ARCHITECTS LIMITED

- AND -

A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY BARRY LYONS SOLICITORS)



DIVISION :

Chairman: Mr Haugh
Employer Member: Mr Murphy
Worker Member: Mr Bell

SUBJECT:

1. Dismissal

BACKGROUND:

2. This dispute concerns a dismissal. The Worker referred this case to the Labour Court on 19 October 2020 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 20 November 2020.

  • WORKER’S ARGUMENTS:
  • 1. The Worker was headhunted by C&W O’Brien Architects Limited to accept a role as the Financial Controller at the Company.

    2. The Worker was summarily dismissed by the Company on 17 February 2020.

    3. The Worker has been unable to obtain alternative employment since his summary dismissal from the Company.



RECOMMENDATION :

Background to the Dispute

The Worker is an experienced financial controller. In late 2019 he was headhunted on behalf of C&W O’Brien Architects Limited (‘the Company’). He commenced employment with the Company on 6 January 2020 on a salary of €70,000.00 per annum. His contract of employment provided for a probationary period of six months. Notice from the Company during the probationary period was one week. Although the Worker’s contract of employment referred to the Company’s disciplinary policy, the Worker was never furnished with a copy of that policy.

The Worker was summarily dismissed by the Company’s CEO on 17 February 2020 without any prior warning or indication that either his conduct or his performance was unsatisfactory. Although the Worker’s written contract provided for a one-week notice period during his probation, the Director of the Company who had headhunted the Worker gave him an undertaking that he would receive pay-in-lieu of one month’s notice. The Worker submits that he did not receive the full amount due to him on foot of that undertaking. By his calculation, there was a shortfall of €849.36 in the payment he received. He had also accrued holiday pay of €754.31, he submits, which was not paid to him. The Worker told the Court that he has been unable to obtain alternative employment since his summary dismissal from the Company.

The Company declined to attend the within hearing.

Recommendation

This Court has consistently held that an employer is not relieved of the obligation to act fairly during a probationary period. The requirements of the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures made under section 42 of the Industrial Relations Act 1990, as promulgated in SI 146 of 2000, must be complied with before any decision is taken by an employer to dismiss a Worker during his or her probationary period. It is clear to the Court from the Worker’s submission in this case that the Company failed to have regard to the Code of Practice when it dismissed the Worker summarily without having followed any process whatsoever.

The Court recommends that the Company should pay compensation of €60,000.00 to the Worker together with the monetary value of his accrued annual leave of €754.31. The Court makes this Recommendation having regard to the Worker’s agreed salary and the losses he has accrued to date arising from his summary dismissal.

The Court so recommends.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Alan Haugh
OC ______________________
30 November 2020 Deputy Chairman


NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Orla Collender, Court Secretary.