INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
DARET MANUFACTURING LTD
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
- AND -
(REPRESENTED BY CITIZENS INFORMATION CENTRE)
Chairman: Ms Jenkinson
Employer Member: Mr Grier
Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu
1. Loss of employment, loss of earnings.
2. The Company specialises in the manufacture of components for point of purchase cosmetic displays, and was established in Sligo in 1986. The worker concerned commenced employment as a temporary production operator on the 27th January 2003, which included a four week probationary period.
- During the probationary period, the worker was disruptive and not meeting the standards set by the Company, despite on going training. On the 11th February 2003 the Production Manager spoke with the worker regarding his work performance and extended his probation for a further eight weeks.
On 18th March 2003, the Production Manager held a disciplinary meeting, where he informed the worker that his work performance had not improved despite the training given, and that the worker had not followed Company procedures regarding attendance. He informed the worker that the Company would be terminating his employment the 25th March 2003. The worker informed the Manager that he would not be working his week's notice and left that day.
On the 13th June 2003, the worker referred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 23rd October 2003, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
3.1 No indication was given to the worker concerned, during his initial probationary period, that his work performance was unsatisfactory.
2 The worker maintains he was treated like a child from school and was forced to leave his employment, because Management wanted to terminate it.
3 The worker concerned regarded himself as a loyal employee and a good team worker.
4.1 From an early stage, members of Management had to speak to the worker concerned on several occasions regarding his unsatisfactory work performance.
2 The Company provided written terms and conditions of employment, and the worker was aware of the conditions of his probation.
3 The worker concerned failed to achieve the standards expected of him. He received several warnings but failed to improve and Management had no choice but to terminate his employment.
The Court has considered the submissions of both parties. The Court notes that as the worker's performance had not reached the Company's standard, it provided him with training, counselling and extended his probation to allow him every opportunity to improve.
The Court is not satisfied that the worker's account of events was substantiated.
Therefore the Court upholds the Company's decision to terminate his employment and does not recommend concession of the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
13th November 2003______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jo O'Connor, Court Secretary.