Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88676 Case Number: AD8873 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: GAILMAR SALES LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Appeal by the worker against a Rights Commissioners Recommendation No. BC158/88 concerning an alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
12. The Court, having considered the submissions of both parties
is of the opinion that the Rights Commissioners Recommendation
should stand.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88676 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD7388
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: GAILMAR SALES LIMITED
RON'S NEWSAGENTS
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the worker against a Rights Commissioners
Recommendation No. BC158/88 concerning an alleged unfair
dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was interviewed for the position of sales
assistant by the proprietor of Rons Newsagents in January, 1988
and was subsequently offered the position.
3. She commenced employment on 8th February, 1988 and worked
there up until her dismissal on 9th May, 1988. She worked a 48.50
hour week and was paid #1.85 an hour.
4. Problems were encountered between the worker and management
soon after she commenced work. There were various incidents which
led to friction between the worker and her Employer. Eventually
on 9th May, 1988 following one such incident the worker was
dismissed from her employment. On that day the worker was engaged
in checking stock when she noticed that the son of the proprietor
was using her cash register. She remonstrated with him (as it was
the practice that whoever was assigned to a register was
responsible for that register alone). He then went into his
father's office and following discussions between the proprietor
and the worker she was dismissed.
5. According to the Employer the basic facts as outlined by the
worker are correct. However, his son was manager of that shop and
had every right to be at the register as he was checking up on
stocks of lottery tickets. He had initially called out to the
worker to check the register with him. As she did not respond he
asked a co-worker to check the till with him. This was in line
with Company policy and practice. The worker concerned complained
loudly about this and following discussion was dismissed.
6. The worker then referred the matter to a Rights Commissioner
for investigation and recommendation. Following an investigation
held on the 11th July, 1988 at which the Employer did not attend
or was not represented the Rights Commissioner issued the
following recommendations:-
"In the light of the above I find that the worker was unfairly
dismissed from her employment as sales assistant with Ron's
newsagents on the 9th May, 1988 and I recommend that the
Company pay her the sum of #750 and that this is accepted by
her in full and final settlement of all claims on the Company
in relation to the termination of her employment."
The worker was referred to by name in the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation.
7. The worker appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation
to the Labour Court on the basis that the compensation awarded was
insufficient.
8. The Court heard the appeal on 22nd September, 1988.
9. Prior to the commencement of the hearing the Employer
explained to the Court that contrary to the impressions which may
have been created, he did in fact reply to the original letter
sent by the Rights Commissioner's Office. The reply intimated
inter alia that as the worker concerned was only employed for a
short probationary period the matter should not be pursued.
However from subsequent enquiries made this letter was never
received by the Rights Commissioner.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
10. 1. The worker had 4.50 years previous experience working as a
shop assistant in another shop prior to taking up employment
with Rons. She received an excellent reference when she left.
2. The worker believes she was sacked for nothing. Her
confidence is now shattered and she is not able to cope with
interviews for jobs.
3. The worker denies that she was responsible for creating a
bad atmosphere in the shop, was a disruptive influence or was
abusive to management or other members of staff. In fact
there was a practice carried out in the shop which was
improper (nobody being responsible for their own cash
register) which she highlighted and which was subsequently
rectified by management.
4. The worker carried out her duties to the best of her
ability and was fully co-operative with management at all
times.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
11. 1. Management has always enjoyed a good working relationship
with the staff. This can be borne out by the fact that most
of them have been there since the shop opened six years ago.
2. The worker was employed on a 3 month trial basis. During
that 3 months there were a number of incidents which required
warnings from management (details supplied to the Court).
3. More problems were experienced with this worker in the
short period of time she was working for the Company than the
rest of the staff combined. There were numerous complaints
from both staff and customers alike. It was considered that
in the best interests of the business and indeed the worker
herself that her employment should be terminated.
DECISION:
12. The Court, having considered the submissions of both parties
is of the opinion that the Rights Commissioners Recommendation
should stand.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_______________________
9th December, 1988. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.