Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87135 Case Number: AD8731 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: WIGODERS LTD - and - MRS. CATHERINE STEWART |
Appeal by a worker against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. R.P. 160/86.
Recommendation:
The Court, noting that the Company is prepared to give the
Appellant a reference, considers that in all the circumstances of
the case it would not be justified in altering the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation.
The Court so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87135 THE LABOUR COURT AD31/87
SECTION 13(9) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
APPEAL DECISION NO. 31 OF 1987
Parties: M. WIGODER GROUP
and
A WORKER
Subject:
1. Appeal by a worker against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. R.P. 160/86.
Background:
2. The Company is involved in the home decorating trade,
primarily retailing wallpaper and paints through thirteen retail
shops. The worker concerned was dismissed on the 24th November,
1986, after two months' service. She had been employed as a
part-time sales assistant at the Company's Finglas branch. At the
time of her dismissal, she was was still working her probationary
period. There is a conflict of evidence between the parties as to
the reason for the worker's dismissal. The Company states that
the worker was dismissed because she was unsuitable for the
requirements of the job, (details supplied to Court). The worker
for her part, alleges that there was no induction or initial
training given. She also stated that during her employment, she
was never informed of any aspect of her work that might give cause
for complaint, or that improvement was necessary. Following her
dismissal, the worker referred the matter to a Rights
Commissioner, for investigation and recommendation. The Company
agreed to the referral. On 5th February, 1987, the Rights
Commissioner issued the following recommendation in the matter:
"As I was concerned by the admission by the Manageress that
she had made no direct complaints to the Appellant
concerning her work, I adjourned the investigation for the
purpose of questioning the Personnel Manageress.
At the adjourned investigation (the Personnel Manageress)
whilst confirming that she had received notices of the
complaints levelled against the Appellant admitted that she
had not spoken to the Appellant concerning such complaints.
(The Personnel Executive) submitted a statement signed by
the Assistant Manageress which confirmed the complaints made
against the Appellant.
I am of the view that the respondent Company failed in its
responsibility to draw the attention of the Appellant to her
faults prior to termination of employment.
I recommend that the respondent Company pay to the Appellant
the sum of one hundred pounds in full compensation for her
wrongful dismissal."
On 18 February, 1987, the worker appealed the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation under Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969 to the Labour Court. The worker is
seeking a letter of reference, higher compensation for her
dismissal, and an apology from the Company. A Court hearing took
place in Dublin on March 20, 1987.
Worker's arguments:
3. (a) On 24th November, 1986, the worker received a telephone
call terminating her employment with 48 hours notice.
Throughout her 2 month period of employment she was not
informed of any complaints against her, or of any
aspect of her work which required improvement.
(b) The worker carried out each and every duty required.
This included hoovering, which was carried out when all
staff were present. This seldom occurred as the
worker's primary function was to provide assistance
during the lunch period.
(c) As a trainee, part-time assistant, limitations were
placed on the worker which prevented her carrying out
functions similar to those of the full-time staff.
There was no induction or initial training given. At
all times when the worker was in doubt she looked for
direction from the more senior staff.
(d) The worker's roster was Monday, Wednesday and Friday.
When requested on one occasion to work the following
day (Thursday) the worker having a hospital
appointment, asked that she be excused. Another
part-time assistant present agreed to stand in. This
as far as the worker was concerned was the end of the
matter. Apart from this incident the worker complied
with every demand placed upon her.
(e) During the course of her employment with the Company,
the worker refused employment from another source at a
higher salary. This was an indication of her
satisfaction with her position.
(f) The worker rejects all of the allegations against her.
The allegations only occurred after her dismissal. The
worker is seeking a letter of recommendation, an
apology, and a higher level of compensation than that
awarded by the Rights Commissioner.
Company's arguments:
4. (i) The Company carefully examined the situation arising
from the complaints concerning the worker's suitability
for employment and concluded that:
(a) she was unsuitable for the requirements of the
job,
(b) was unco-operative with management and fellow
employees,
(c) was inconsiderate of the needs of the Company's
business (details with Court).
(ii) Based upon these conclusions, the Company decided that
it had no option other than to terminate the worker's
employment.
(iii) The Company feels that it was fully within its rights,
as the worker was a part-time employee who had only
served two months of a six months probationary period.
(iv) The Company's position was complicated by the fact that
the worker was a relative of the chargehand in the
shop. This fact was not known at the time of the
worker's engagement. In order to avoid embarrassment
to all concerned, the Company told the worker in the
first instance that the reason for her being let go was
because "the shop was not doing well." It was only
when the worker pressed the matter that she was
informed of the real reason for her dismissal. The
Company is prepared to give the worker a reference.
The Company, now feels that its sympathetic handling of
the situation may have inadvertently created a
situation in which the worker seized an opportunity to
construct an unjustified grievance.
(v) The Company believes that it has established
considerable and justifiable ground for terminating the
worker's employment. Furthermore the Company can find
no sustainable reason why the worker should receive any
compensation award, or any other consideration. It is
the Company's contention that the worker brought about
the situation in which the Company had no alternative
but to take the steps which it did.
DECISION:
The Court, noting that the Company is prepared to give the
Appellant a reference, considers that in all the circumstances of
the case it would not be justified in altering the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
________________________
Deputy Chairman.
24th April, 1987.
P.F./J.C.