INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
NAVAN BUILDING SERVICES
- AND -
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)
Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Mr Doherty
Worker Member: Mr Nash
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Union and the employer in relation to an alleged unfair dismissal. The Union (on behalf of the worker) is claiming that the worker was dismissed following a refusal to operate a lorry which he felt was unsafe.
The Company is claiming that the worker had received several verbal and two written warnings about inappropriate conduct and eventually left of his own accord.
On the 22nd June, 2004, 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 19th May, 2005. The Worker agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
3. 1. The worker in question received no written terms and conditions of employment, nor was there a grievance/disciplinary procedure in the Company.
2. It was never conveyed to the worker that his employment was subject to a probationary period.
3. The worker was not afforded the opportunity to refute the allegations made against him prior to dismissal.
4. 1. The worker had received several verbal and two written warnings in relation to his conduct in the workplace. Clients had also written to the company conveying their dissatisfaction with his conduct on site. He subsequently left his employment following a refusal to follow instructions given to him by his employer.
2. The worker was constantly reminded that he was on a trial period in the workplace.
3. The worker accepted the verbal warnings in relation to the fact that his conduct and bad language were unacceptable.
The Court is satisfied that the dismissal in this case was procedurally unfair in that the claimant was not afforded any adequate opportunity to present a defence before the decision to dismiss him was taken.
However, it is clear on the evidence presented that the claimant had given unsatisfactory service in a number of respects, details of which were provided to the Court. In these circumstances he must be held to have contributed to the circumstances leading to the dismissal and any compensation must reflect this degree of contribution.
In the circumstances the Court recommends that the claimant be paid compensation in an amount equal to two weeks wages, in addition to what he already received.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
27th May, 2005______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.