INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
MODERN KITCHENS MANUFACTURING LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY CROWLEY MILLER, SOLICITORS)
- AND -
Chairman: Ms Owens
Employer Member: Mr Keogh
Worker Member: Mr Rorke
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company as a wood machinist on the 16th of November, 1997. He left the employment on the 29th of January, 1998. The worker claimed that he had been unfairly dismissed and referred the matter to the Labour Court on the 23rd of March, 1998 under 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 the 9th of July, 1998.
3. 1. The worker commenced employment with the Company on a trial basis for 1 week after which he was informed that he was suitable for the job.
2. The worker resigned from permanent employment on the understanding that his prospects were considerably better with Modern Kitchens.
3. The worker has over 30 years experience in the business. It was his understanding that everything to do with the job was going well until he discovered that his job was advertised in a national newspaper.
4. The worker was treated unfairly by the Company. His dismissal has caused him considerable distress and disappointment.
4. 1. The worker was employed on a trial basis for a period of 6 to 8 weeks. During the week commencing the 16th of November, 1997 he was under the supervision of a factory foreman who observed that while he was punctual and had a good knowledge of various wood types, he was a little slow and in several instances his work was not accurate.
2. During the busy Christmas period the indications were that the worker had not improved his speed, and some materials had to be re-cut. While the foreman did not speak formally to the worker it was obvious that he was behind in his work as the assembly staff were being held up.
3. The worker was employed as a qualified wood machinist. Management did not have the time to constantly stand over the worker or to check his work. It was clear that he was not suitable for the position.
4. When placing the advertisement in the newspaper, the Company was conscious of the worker's trial period coming to an end and that neither his speed or accuracy had improved.
5. When the worker was told that he was not suitable for the job he indicated that he was happy to call it a day. In the circumstances the worker was not treated unfairly by the Company.
Having considered the submissions from the parties to this dispute the Court is satisfied that the claimant was not fairly treated in that he was not given a letter setting out details of his employment and was dismissed in a somewhat peremptory manner.
The Court accordingly recommends he be paid a sum of £500 as compensation for the distress caused.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
20th July, 1998______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.