INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
FIRST BATHROOMS SOLUTIONS
- AND -
Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Mr Doherty
Worker Member: Mr O'Neill
1. Alleged unfair dismissal
2. The worker was employed as a ceramic tiler with the Company from September 2003 to March 2004. He worked on a building site until February 2004 and then moved to tiling private houses where he worked as part of a team. On the 23rd of March 2004 he was called to a meeting with his employer who informed him that his work was unsatisfactory and that his employment with the Company was being terminated. The worker contends that he was unfairly dismissed and rejects the allegations that his work was unsatisfactory. The Company rejects the claim on the basis that the worker was on trial and work was not satisfactory during this time.
- On the 17th June, 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 20th September, 2004.
- The worker agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
3. 1. The worker was informed that he would be working as a tiler in the team and his partner was employed as a plumber. The Company also informed him that a general handyman would be employed to do jobs such as plastering, carpentry and electrical work. The worker contends that no such person was employed and the team had to do this work themselves.
2. There were problems with each job completed in that the worker was delayed due to lack of supplies or late delivery, the wrong supplies being delivered. While there were snags in some jobs, all were completed and the customer appeared satisfied. The last job undertaken before termination of employment was to finish off work started by another team, again the customer appeared satisfied and first notification of any problems was mentioned at the meeting of the 23rd March, 2004.
4. 1. After negotiations with the worker, the Company decided to offer independent contracts for bathroom renovations for private installations, on trial basis only, starting in February, 2004. The worker agreed that full unlimited responsibility must be carried for each job.
2. The workers entire performance during the trial period was a disaster. There were problems with each job undertaken and some jobs had to be undone and finished properly by Management. This was verbalised to the worker on different occasions.
The Court is not satisfied that the claimant was given sufficient warning that his standard of work was deficient and that his continued employment was in jeopardy. In that regard the employer failed to observe the standard of procedural fairness prescribed by the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures (S.I 146 of 2000). Accordingly the Court is of the view that the dismissal was unfair.
The Court recommends that the employer pay the claimant €1,500 in compensation for the dismissal.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
27th September, 2004______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Joanne O'Connor, Court Secretary.