INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
FALKON SECURITY SERVICES
(REPRESENTED BY MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES (IRELAND) LIMITED
- AND -
Chairman: Mr Flood
Employer Member: Mr Pierce
Worker Member: Mr Rorke
1. Claim by a worker that he was unfairly dismissed.
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company as a security officer on the 27th June, 1997. He was on a six months probationary period. The worker was dismissed on the 27th November, 1997. He claimed that he was unfairly dismissed and on the 1st May, 1998 referred a complaint to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the 1st July, 1998. The worker did not attend the hearing.
3. 1. Part of the worker's terms and conditions of employment provided that his employment was subject to the successful completion of six months probation, during which time the Company reserved the right to terminate the worker's employment should it be assessed that he was unsuitable.
2. Initially the worker was assigned 'static guard' duties at a client site. Subsequently he was moved to 'mobile patrol' duties which entailed checking various client sites on a timely basis. During this time there were numerous complaints from fellow security officers about the worker's attitude and behaviour which they found totally unacceptable. The worker was also rude and arrogant to members of management (details to the Court).
3. In an effort to assist the worker the Company moved him back to 'static guard' duties which he had previously carried out in a satisfactory fashion. He applied for two weeks leave and on return contacted the company for his roster. On being informed of his static guard duties the worker became abusive and did not turn up for his assigned duties. The Company tried to contact him on numerous occasions without success.
4. On the 13th November, 1997 the Company received a medical certificate in respect of the worker's illness from 28th October, to 12th November, 1997 stating that he would be fit for work on the 19th November, 1997. The worker did not contact the Company until the 27th November, 1997 when he called to the office to see his roster for the following week.
5. At this time Management took the opportunity to explain to the worker that he should have contacted the Company by 10.30a.m. on the first day of his illness. He had not done so nor did he contact the Company in the following weeks. In view of the worker's unauthorised leave of absence together with his unsuitability as a patrol officer, and the fact that he was still on probation the Company exercised its option to dismiss the worker. He was paid his statutory entitlements.
6. The Company treated the worker in a fair and reasonable manner. He was given every opportunity to improve his performance, but did not do so. The Company was left with no alternative but to dismiss him.
The claimant did not attend the hearing. Based on the evidence before it, the Court finds that the employee was not dismissed unfairly.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
16th July, 1998______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.