INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
C & M CONSTRUCTION LIMITED
- AND -
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)
Chairman: Ms Jenkinson
Employer Member: Mr Carberry
Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation Ir12070/02/GF.
2. The appeal concerns a worker who commenced employment with the Company as a driver/site operator in April, 2002. He was dismissed in October, 2002. The Union claimed that the worker was unfairly dismissed and the issue was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. On the 22nd April, 2003 the Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation as follows:
"On balance I am accepting the respondent's account of what transpired over the period in question and I decide the dismissal was not unfair and I dismiss the claim."
On the 22nd May, 2003 the worker appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court. The Court heard the appeal on the 1st October, 2003.
3. 1. The Company listed a number of occasions when it alleged the claimant was absent from the employment without permission. The worker had in fact received permission from his foreman.
2. The claimant was on sick leave for two days, on one of which he delivered workers to site before returning home.
3. The worker did not receive his written terms and conditions of employment nor was he advised of the Company's grievance/dispute procedure. He did not receive verbal or written warnings and was unfairly dismissed.
4. The worker seeks appropriate redress.
4. 1. The Company Handbook outlines the terms and conditions for working in the Company. It sets out the terms of the probationary period which all staff must satisfy before their position is made permanent. This includes suitability to perform the work and to adhere to the Company's terms and conditions such as timekeeping and attendance.
2. The claimant had a number of instances of persistent absenteeism. He did not adhere to the Company policy for requesting time off. His immediate foreman spoke to the worker at each time of unauthorised absence and it was noted.
3. At the end of the probationary period the Company decided that it would not continue the worker in the employment due to his absenteeism and unreliability.
4. He was paid his statutory entitlements.
The Court has considered the submissions of both sides to this appeal and can find no grounds to overturn the Rights Commissioner's recommendation. Accordingly, the Court upholds the Rights Commissioner's recommendation and the Union's appeal fails.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
10th October, 2003______________________
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.