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.

 
 

LCR17282

FULL RECOMMENDATION

CD/02/450
RECOMMENDATIONNO.LCR17282
(CC02/4397)
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990



PARTIES :
FAS

- AND -

SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION


DIVISION :

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


BACKGROUND:

2. The worker was employed by FÁS as a Grade 10 carpentry and joinery Instructor at the FÁS Limerick Training Centre. He commenced employment on the 30th of April, 2001, and his probationary period was to be for nine months. The letter offering him employment stated that the probationary period may be extended at FÁS's discretion, but would not exceed 12 months. The letter stated that there would be three review meetings. The Union claim's that the worker was dismissed without all of the meetings having taken place.

Discussions took place locally but agreement was not reached. The matter was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission and agreement was not reached. The matter was referred to the Labour Court on the 12th of August, 2002, under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 26th of September, 2002.


UNION'S ARGUMENTS:-

3. 1. The supervisor did not conform withthe policy and procedure for probationary employees. The worker was not informed that the probationary period was being extended.

2. A minimum of three review meetings during the nine month probationary period should take place between the individual and the supervisor. The second review meeting did not take place.

3. The worker was allowed to continue with his first class for a twenty week duration and all the apprentices passed their exams indicating that the worker had potential to reach a satisfactory performance.

4. Information on supervisor assessment was not shared with the probationary employee. The supervisor failed to came back on items to be clarified.

5. The review meetings should have taken place at the end of the third, sixth and ninth month from the date of appointment and the supervisor had the option of holding monthly interim reviews. These dates were not adhered to and the supervisor did not implement monthly reviews , a gap of six months was left between reviews.

7. The supervisor did not ensure that the worker was given sufficient information and resources to perform his job satisfactorily. Technical Assistance was not made available to the worker.

COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1.FÁS has an obligation and responsibility to both apprentices and their employers to ensure that the training apprentices receive meets the required standard. The standard of training being provided by the worker and the quality of work produced by his apprentices continued to be unacceptable.

2. The worker was given a comprehensive induction into FÁS and into the running of the Phase 2 Carpentry and Joinery Apprenticeship course.

3. Three probationary interviews were conducted during which he was informed of the areas of poor performance and the improvements required, over the course of the year there was no discernible improvement.

5. It is with much regret that management had to advise the worker that his employment with FÁS was to be terminated.












RECOMMENDATION:

The Court has considered the submissions of both parties. The Court has examined the procedures involved in the dismissal and is of the view that they were flawed.

Management employed the claimant in the knowledge that he did not have the requisite qualifications at the time; he had no experience as an instructor and had not worked as a craftsman for some time previously. It became evident from an early stage that the situation was not working out satisfactorily. Management had a duty and responsibility to ensure that the situation was closely monitored and the necessary additional resources provided as stipulated in their procedures.

While the Court is satisfied that a number of reviews were carried out which concluded that his performance was unsatisfactory, these reviews were not followed in the manner stipulated nor in the manner likely to rectify the situation.

Therefore, the Court recommends that he should be paid compensation of €5,000 in full and final settlement of all claims.



Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Caroline Jenkinson
10th, October, 2002______________________
HMCD/MB.Deputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Helena McDermott, 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