INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
- AND -
Chairman: Mr Flood
Employer Member: Mr Pierce
Worker Member: Mr. Somers
1. Alleged unfair dismissal
2. The worker was employed by the Company on the 2nd of March, 2000, and claims that he was unfairly dismissed on the 8th of March. Following an interview in February, he received a telephone call asking him if he was interested in a new administrative post in the Company. He started working 2 days later with another recent employee. He spent most of the time writing cheques and being shown how the accounts system operated.
After 5 working days he received a telephone call telling him that his position was terminated as "it was not working out".
The worker felt that he was unfairly dismissed and referred his case to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 25th of August, 2000. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. The Company did not attend the hearing, but in a letter to the Court maintained the following:- " The worker was employed on a trial basis, and it became clear after 2-3 days that he was not suitable for the job. He was given alternative work, but this also proved unsatisfactory. It was decided that the worker would need one-to-one training and, as the Company was short-staffed, this was not possible. When the worker was informed that he would have to be let go, he reacted badly and became abusive, and has continued to harass Company personnel. The worker was given his P45 and any money due".
3. 1. The worker was given no indication that there was any problem with his work. He was given no valid reason for his dismissal.
2. The worker had difficulty in getting his P45 and money, which was incorrect when he did receive it. He had arranged to meet someone from the Company on 3 occasions to sort out these issues, but was let down each time. He found the whole event very frustrating.
The employers did not attend the hearing, but sent in a letter to the Court outlining their case.
The Court considered this letter and the written and oral submissions given by the claimant.
The Court is satisfied that the employer was made aware of the claimant's employment record when recruiting him, and that it would be necessary to give him an opportunity to train and learn the job. The employer did not give him an opportunity to prove himself, sacking him after 5 days. No indication was given to the claimant of any dissatisfaction during the 5 days' employment, although he spoke to management during this period. No basic training was given, no real trial took place, and the claimant was given no satisfactory reason for his dismissal, which the Court deems to be unfair.
The Court, having considered this case, recommends that the Company pays the claimant £400 in compensation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
4th September, 2000______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.