INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1); INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT; 1969
HELLA IRELAND LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE SOCIETY OF THE IRISH MOTOR INDUSTRY)
- AND -
Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Mr McHenry
Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
2. The claim concerns a worker who commenced employment with the Company as a warehouse Supervisor on the 8th of August, 2000. He was on a six month probationary period. His employment ended on the 8th of December, 2000. The worker claimed that he was unfairly dismissed and on the 21st of January, 2001, 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 of March, 2001.
3. 1. During the period of his employment the worker was a conscientious employee who often worked late evenings and some Saturdays. In October, 2000, he had been sent to the UK. on a training course and found it was very helpful. Operations in the warehouse improved and the worker felt he was doing well with his job. He was on good terms with fellow employers and management, and was honest and co-operative.
2. On the 8th of December, 2000, the worker was summoned to the Managing Director's office and was informed that he was being 'let go'. The worker asked for a reason but none was forthcoming. The warehouse position has since been filled internally. The worker was treated in a most unjust manner and was unfairly dismissed. He seeks appropriate redress.
4. 1. The Company made many efforts to help the worker in his position but he consistently failed to meet targets that were agreed with him. Almost every week meetings were held between the worker and his Manager at which problems were outlined. On virtually every occasion that a meeting was held with the worker, confirmation was sought from him that he understood the job requirements and he never indicated that he did not understand.
2. As Warehouse Supervisor, the worker was required to manage staff in the warehouse. Unfortunately, the Company was not satisfied either in this regard as he failed to adequately organise these resources to management's satisfaction.
3. At all stages the worker was aware of those considerable failures and he could offer no acceptable explanation. The decision to terminate the worker's employment was not taken until December because the Company genuinely wanted him to succeed.
4. The Company paid the worker his statutory entitlements plus an ex-gratia payment, and also gave him a reference.
5. The Company accepts that the worker was trustworthy, reliable and a conscientious employee, and although his employment with the Company did not work out, is willing to do its utmost to assist him in his pursuit of a career elsewhere.
The Court fully accepts that the claimant in this case was an honest and diligent employee who carried out his duties to the best of his abilities. No blame whatsoever can be attributed to the claimant for the circumstances in which his employment with the Company came to an end during the probation period.
The Court recommends that the claimant should now accept that his good name and reputation is in no way diminished by the events which gave rise to his complaint to the Court. The Court further recommends that the claimant should meet with the Company and agree the terms of a revised reference reflecting the attributes of the claimant and the amicable circumstances in which the employment relationship ended. The Court further notes the employers offer to assist the claimant in finding suitable alternative employment in the motor trade.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
14 March, 2001______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.