FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : THURLES TEST CENTRE (REPRESENTED BY PENINSULA BUSINESS SERVICES (IRELAND) LIMITED) - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Wrongfully dismissed
BACKGROUND:
2. When the Thurles Test Centre (TTC) opened in August 2008 the Complainant was employed in the role of Senior Vehicle Tester. Shortly afterwards another Tester was recruited despite the fact that the financial situation within the Company was at the time somewhat strained. A request by Management to take a 30% salary cut was refused by the Complainant and in January 2009 he was dismissed from his post.
The Worker claims he was wrongful dismissed while the Employer claims that the dismissal was due to redundancy.
On the 13th October, 2009 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 21st September, 2010.
The Worker agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. During the six months that the Complainant was employed with TTC he was constantly influenced by Management regarding testing procedures. If a vehicle failed it could result in arguments with Management but the Complainant continued to maintain a high professional standard and continued to fail vehicles if he deemed them to be outside their tolerance parameters.
2. When dismissed the Complainant asked about the 'Last In First Out' principal, but was told that the decision had already been taken and could not be reversed. However, shortly afterwards another Tester was recruited by the Company to replace him.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Complainant by his own admission had told Management on several occasions that there was not enough work for two Testers, in refusing a pay-cut he actively contributed to his own redundancy.
2. The allegation that soon after been made redundant the position the Complainant held was filled by another Tester is denied.
RECOMMENDATION:
The claim before the Court concerns the Worker’s claim that he was wrongly dismissed from his employment on 27th January 2009. The Employer stated that his termination of employment came about due to a redundancy situation within the organisation and his selection was based on independent, verifiable and objective criteria.
Having examined the oral and written submissions of both parties the Court is satisfied that while a redundancy situation existed in the organisation at the time, the dismissal of the Claimant took place without due consideration, without consultation and with no regard for appropriate procedures. The Claimant was not afforded an opportunity to consult with the Employer on possible alternatives to redundancy; to the possibility of volunteers for redundancy; nor was he afforded an opportunity to discuss any performance issues they may have had with him and nor was he offered part time work when it became available shortly after the termination of his employment.
The Court is satisfied that the conduct of the Employer in relation to the Claimant fell far short of the standard of reasonableness and adherence to fair procedures which would be expected. Accordingly, the Court is satisfied that the Claimant was unfairly dismissed and should be appropriately compensated.
In all the circumstances of the case, the Court recommends that the Claimant be paid compensation in the amount of €15,000 in respect of unfair dismissal.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
11th October, 2010______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.