FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ST JOHN BOSCO YOUTH CENTRE - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Unfair Dismissal and breach of procedures
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the employer and the worker in relation to unfair dismissal and the employer's alleged breach of its own procedures. The worker alleges that she was dismissed during her probationary period on the basis of unsatisfactory performance at work yet was never warned of any performance difficulties in advance and was not afforded the right to appeal the probationary report findings.
Management's position is that the worker's performance was unsatisfactory and that she was informed of this during a probationary meeting with her supervisor. At first management considered extending the probationary period but claimed that on further consideration, and on the basis of the sub-standard performace of the worker, decided that dismissal was the appropriate action to take.
On the 15th December 2009, the worker submitted her complaint in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on 13th May 2010.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The worker was not afforded natural justice. She was dismissed on the basis of alleged poor performace yet prior to the probationary meeting no issues were raised by management.
2 The worker was also refused access to the grievance and disciplinary procedures, which form part of all contracts of employment. It is unacceptable that having been refused a chance to respond to her alleged poor performance, she was denied due process and dismissed.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 There were issues relating to the worker's under-performance which she was informed about at her probationary meeting. Management considered extending the probationary period but ultimately decided, in conjunction with the Board of Management, that dismissal was appropriate in the circumstances.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of both parties to this dispute.
The worker in this case, who was on a twelve-month, fixed-term, contract on review at the end of her probationary period was denied any access to the disciplinary procedures set out in her contract of employment. The decision to dismiss the worker concerned was taken before the work performance issues raised were put to her. Consequently she had no opportunity to defend herself nor to protect her professional reputation. After the decision to dismiss her was taken, she was refused the opportunity to appeal to the Board of Management in accordance with the Centre's Disciplinary Procedure and her contract of employment. The Court accordingly finds that the worker was unfairly dismissed.
In all the exceptional circumstances of the case the Court recommends that the worker be paid compensation for unfair dismissal in the sum of €7,500.00 in full and final settlement of the matter.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
21st June 2010______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.