INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
- AND -
Chairman: Ms Jenkinson
Employer Member: Mr Grier
Worker Member: Mr Nash
1. Compensation for lost work time.
2. The Company is involved in computer sales.The dispute concerns a worker who commenced employment as a sales executive on the 23rd September, 2004. He was dismissed on the 27th September, 2004. The worker claimed that he was unfairly dismissed and sought to refer the issue to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. The Company objected to such a referral. On the 10th January, 2005 the worker referred a complaint to the Labour Court under Section 20 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the 23rd March, 2005.
3. 1. The worker received and signed his contract of employment on 21st September, 2004. He was unable to start work on the 22nd September, 2004 due to a flight delay from a previous assignment in the U.K.The worker advised the Company of this delay. He commenced work on the 23rd September, 2004 and was taken ill that evening. The following morning he contacted the Company and advised Management of his illness.
2. The worker reported for duty on the 27th September, 2004 and was summoned to a meeting at which he was arbitrarily and unfairly dismissed without recourse to procedures.The worker rejects the contention that he displayed a negative attitude at the meeting. He seeks appropriate redress.
4. 1. The agreed start date for the worker was 20th September, 2004. He was unable to do so and the Company reluctantly agreed to a start date of 22nd September, 2004. He did not attend for work on that date but did start on the 23rd September, 2004 and training commenced. The worker did not attend on the 24th September, 2004 but phoned in sick.
2. The reason the worker was offered the post in the first instance, over other candidates with equal qualifications, was his stated immediate availability. The Company committed considerable resources in relation to his training into the new post.
3. The worker was called to a meeting on the 27th September, 2004. At this meeting the worker did not regard his attendance as unacceptable and displayed a negative attitude. Management decided that it would not be possible to move forward in a positive fashion and dismissed the worker. He received one day's pay.
Having considered the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court accepts that the Company considered it unsatisfactory that having agreed a starting date with him, that he did not report for work and this coupled with his unavailability for work on the Friday, caused it to feel that he had failed in his duties in the initial week of his employment.
However, the Court does not accept that the claimant was treated fairly when his employment was terminated without recourse to the Company's disciplinary procedures. Therefore, in compensation for this treatment the Court recommends that he should be paid the sum of one month's salary less one day, in full and final settlement of his claim.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
30th March, 2005______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.