INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
- AND -
Chairman: Mr McGee
Employer Member: Mr Grier
Worker Member: Mr Nash
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-031615-MA-04/JH.
2. The appeal concerns a worker who commenced employment on the 30th March, 2002 as a Travel Sales Consultant. On the 14rh June, 2004, following a disciplinary hearing the worker was issued with a first written warning arising from his work performance. The Company maintained that as the required standard was not attained he was issued with a final written warning on the 11th November, 2004, following a disciplinary hearing. The Company terminated the worker's employment on the 13th December, 2004, following a disciplinary hearing held on the 6th December, 2004, on the basis that the worker consistently underperformed in his role. The worker appealed the decision to dismiss him but the dismissal was upheld following an appeal hearing on the 21st December, 2004. The worker referred the issue to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. On the 7th June, 2005 the Rights Commissioner issued her recommendation as follows;
"Based on the submissions made and the documents provided and for the reasons set out in the foregoing, I find that the decision to dismiss was not unfair and that the actions of the employer were not unreasonable and I therefore do not recommend concession of the worker's claim".
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's recommendation)
On the 4th July, 2005 the worker appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court. The Court heard the appeal on the 20th October, 2005.
3. 1. The worker does not accept the information provided by the Company in relation to his work performance. It is incorrect and uncorroborated. The request by the Rights Commissioner of the Company for evidence to back up its claims was not provided. The Company's claim in relation to one major issue was rectified even before Management began disciplinary action. The worker's performance in the immediate period before his dismissal had improved and he performed well in the employment .
2. The worker was under the impression that the meeting with Management in early December, 2004 was to further review his performance and he did not anticipate being dismissed. The worker considers that he was unfairly dismissed.
4. 1. The worker was issued with a first written warning on the 14th June, 2004 and a final written warning on 11th November, 2004. Following the worker's subsequent failure to improve to the required company standard the decision to dismiss him was taken on 9th December, 2004. The worker was provided with additional coaching to rectify issues in relation to performance but failed to respond to same.
2 The Company has acted at all times in accordance with the principles of natural justice and in line with its disciplinary procedure.The decision to dismiss was fair and reasonable in all the circumstances.
Based on the submissions of and information supplied by the parties, the Court finds no reason to alter the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner and accordingly upholds it.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
11th January, 2006______________________
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.