Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88572 Case Number: LCR12006 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: DUN LAOGHAIRE DISCOUNT - and - A WORKER |
Dispute concerning the alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, considers that the arrangements covering the employment
of the claimant, advice as to her progress in the position and
also the monitoring of the cash register were far from
satisfactory. In these circumstances the Court finds that the
claimant's dismissal was unfair. Accordingly the Court recommends
that the employer should pay her #300 compensation in full and
final settlement of her claim.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88572 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12006
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: DUN LAOGHAIRE DISCOUNT
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed in March, 1988, by the Company as a
cashier, and was paid #95 for a five day week. She had previously
held a position as a cashier assistant in Quinnsworth for a three
and a half year period, 1984 - 1987. On 30th April, 1988, the
worker was dismissed by the employer on the basis that there were
regular shortfalls on the cash. The worker was paid one week's
wages in lieu of notice. The worker claimed her dismissal was
unfair and referred the matter to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. The Company was not agreeable
to such an investigation, however, and on 2nd June, 1988, the
worker referred the matter to the Labour Court under Section 20(1)
of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The worker agreed to be
bound by the recommendation of the Court. The Court investigated
the dispute on 17th August, 1988.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. While the worker was told of shortfalls, she was given no
warning prior to her dismissal. The worker was not the only
person using the cash register as two people worked in the
shop and a part-time worker was there some days. Therefore,
the employer could not have known who was responsible for the
shortfalls. In addition, all cash and receipt rolls were
taken from the shop each evening to be counted and while the
worker was informed of shortfalls, which did not occur as
frequently as claimed by the employer, she was never given a
warning.
2. The employer gave the worker the following reasons for
her dismissal: that he could not afford to pay her wages;
that she did not fit in; and that she was short/over on
cash. However, the turnover in the shop is good, the worker
got on well with everyone including customers and other
workers also used the cash register. Therefore, the
dismissal was unfair.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. From the start of the worker's employment, the cash at
the end of the day was frequently incorrect, with a shortfall
occurring regularly and an occasional excess. The average
shortfall was #5 to #6 and the highest on one occasion was
#25. The cash register was checked regularly when the worker
was consistently on it.
2. The worker was employed as a cashier on a trial basis for
a six month period. The discrepancies were always brought to
the worker's notice and she was told to be more careful.
After a three week period the worker was warned that unless
her accuracy on the cash register improved, she would be
dismissed. However, there was no sustained improvement and
the employer had no choice but to dismiss her on 30th April,
1988.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, considers that the arrangements covering the employment
of the claimant, advice as to her progress in the position and
also the monitoring of the cash register were far from
satisfactory. In these circumstances the Court finds that the
claimant's dismissal was unfair. Accordingly the Court recommends
that the employer should pay her #300 compensation in full and
final settlement of her claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
_________________________
29th August, 1988
U.M./P.W. Deputy Chairman.