FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DUBLIN AIRPORT AUTHORITY PLC - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Alleged Unfair Dismissal
BACKGROUND:
2. The Claimant was a fixed-term employee in Dublin Airport Authority. The Claimant commenced employment in March 2006 on a six-month contract. Beginning in May 2006 a number of problems arose due to the Claimant's alleged under performance. This led to an informal meeting with Management and a caution by way of advice. However no formal disciplinary santion nor written warning was given. Following a disciplinary hearing on the 9th August, 2006, a decision was made to dismiss the Claimant from the Company. The worker's contract was formally terminated on the 1st September, 2006. The worker referred her claim to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and both parties agreed to be bound by the Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 28th February, 2006.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Worker received favourable reports from senior staff. The allegations of under-performance were not proven nor substantiated by any reports.
2. The Claimant experienced harassment and bullying from certain senior staff members.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Claimant came to the attention of her Supervisors and Manager on a number of occasions after she reported unfit for work.
2. The Worker was given adequate warnings and opportunites to address her performance.
3. The Company lost trust and confidence in the Claimant's ability to fulfil the requirements of her contract.
4. There was no guarantee of any further employment after the 30th September, 2006, the end date of the fixed-term contract.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court is satisfied that the procedural steps taken by the Employer in this case were deficient in some material respects.
In particular, the Employer failed to clearly and unequivocally impress upon the Claimant at an early stage in the procedure that her continued employment was being put in jeopardy by her conduct. On that basis the Court considers that there was an element of unfairness in moving to a dismissal following the incident which occurred in August 2006.
In the circumstances the Court recommends that the Company should pay the Claimant an amount equal to the salary which she would have received had she been retained in employment until the expiry of her fixed-term contract. The Claimant should accept that amount in full and final settlement of her claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
8th March, 2007______________________
LMcCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Lisa McCarthy, Court Secretary.