INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
TRANSLAND INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
- AND -
Chairman: Mr Flood
Employer Member: Mr Pierce
Worker Member: Mr Rorke
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company on the 8th of June, 1998 as a logistics administrator. Her employment was terminated on the 13th of November, 1998. The Company argues that the worker was dismissed because her work performance failed to reach the standard required.
The worker claimed that she had been unfairly dismissed and referred the matter to the Labour Court on the 21st of December, 1998 under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place in Cork on the 4th of March, 1999. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
3. 1. The worker resigned from permanent employment to take up her position with the Company. She was happy in her work and was granted a mortgage by a building society based on a statement from the Company. The statement indicated that her employment was permanent.
2. The worker was treated unfairly. She was dismissed without warning and received no complaints from management in relation to her work performance. She was extremely upset and shocked by her dismissal.
3. It is the worker's contention that she was dismissed to facilitate management's plan to re-employ her predecessor who completed a six-month contract of employment on the 13th of November, 1998, the day of the worker's sudden dismissal. Her predecessor recommenced employment with Transland International on the 16th of November, 1998. The worker concerned did not deserve to be treated in such a manner.
4. 1. Management received complaints from customers in relation to the worker's job performance.
2. The worker's job performance failed to reach the standard required by the Company. Problems regarding her work were brought to her attention but she failed to show improvement and she was dismissed during the period of her probation. Management consider that it treated the worker in a fair manner.
The employers accepted that they had dismissed the claimant at short notice, had given her a misleading explanation for her dismissal and had at no time expressed dissatisfaction with her work performance.
The employee was given no written contract of employment and claimed that she was not informed that there was a probationary period. She claimed that she would not have left a permanent position unless this post was permanent. Other issues in relation to pay were raised.
The employers claim that they were entitled to keep her on probation for 12 months and that her performance was unsatisfactory.
The Court having considered all aspects of this case finds that the manner of dismissal of this employee was totally unacceptable and contrary to good personnel practices expected of any reasonable Company.
The Court recommends that the Company pay the employee £3,000 in compensation,
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
23rd March, 1999______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.