Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8849 Case Number: LCR11743 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: PREMIER PROMOTIONS (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
The alleged unfair dismissal of one worker.
Recommendation:
5. Having regard to the terms under which the worker was employed
and the circumstances under which she was dismissed the Court
recommends that she be granted a sum equal to three weeks pay as
compensation for the loss of employment.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Shiel Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8849 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11743
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: PREMIER PROMOTIONS (IRELAND) LIMITED
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. The alleged unfair dismissal of one worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker commenced employment with the Company in a clerical
capacity on 1st October, 1987. Her commencing salary was #6,000
per annum, to be reviewed after six months. Her contract of
employment was on the following basis.
"....The appointment is conditional on you obtaining a
satisfactory degree of competence in the operation of a
computer system within two months of the commencement of the
system".
The worker's employment was terminated with effect from 6th
November, 1987 with one week's pay in lieu of notice. She was
informed by the Company's accountant of the termination of her
employment. No reason was given. Some days later the Managing
Director returned from holiday and was approached by the worker
with regard to the reason for her dismissal. The Managing
Director cited various incidents which had occurred e.g. the
worker had locked herself out of the premises, she had not phoned
in to say she was sick until 3.20 p.m. on one occasion, she had
suggested non-payment of P.A.Y.E. and P.R.S.I., and on the basis
of her general demeanour (i.e nervous and preoccupied) and these
incidents, she was not considered suitable. He stated that he did
not consider that she would be capable of operating the computer
system. The worker refuted the contention that the incidents
concerned or her demeanour constituted reasons for dismissal. The
computer system had not been installed and she had never been
afforded an opportunity to attain competence in its use. This was
the only condition in writing which had been placed upon her
appointment. On 17th December, 1987 the worker referred a case of
alleged unfair dismissal to the Labour Court under Section 20(1)
of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court hearing took
place on 26th February, 1988.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Managing Director did not give any valid reason for
the dismissal. He stated that the worker's work competence
was not in question, that her typing was perfect and her phone
manner excellent. The worker refutes the suggestion that she
was nervous or preoccupied during the period of her
employment.
2. The worker's appointment was conditional on obtaining
competence within two months in the operation of a computer
system to be installed. Since the system was not installed
the worker was never afforded an opportunity to attain
competence in its use.
3. In relation to the incidents cited by the Managing
Director as reasons for dismissal:
(a) The worker locked herself out of the premises on two
occasions. On one occasion she saw her car being moved
from where she had parked it and assumed it was being
stolen. She ran outside and thereby locked herself out.
The second occasion was on the day she had been dismissed
when she was upset.
(b) On one occasion when she was ill, the worker's husband
was unable to get through on the Company's phone until
3.30 p.m. to state that she was ill.
(c) The worker did not suggest non payment of P.R.S.I. or
P.A.Y.E. Having worked for thirteen years she is quite
familiar with the law in relation to payment of same.
She merely made enquiries with the accountant in relation
to her own personal taxation position.
(d) The worker attended the dentist for one hour with the
Managing Director's permission. She worked this time up
by staying late the following two evenings, by agreement.
(e) The worker considers that she acted reasonably and
calmly when the alarm system went off while she was alone
on the premises.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was employed on a trial basis only, as a
receptionist, accounts clerk and potential trainee computer
operator. During the trial period the performance of her
duties was unsatisfactory. Because she was employed on a
trial basis she had no right to be retained, given that she
was unsatisfactory. The worker received payment in lieu of
notice and was paid all her entitlements.
4. 2. The worker's performance and level of application to her
work were below the level expected of someone with her
experience. She appeared to be nervous and preoccupied and a
number of incidents confirmed to the employer her
unsuitability for the position. Amongst these were the
following:
(a) The worker locked herself out of the premises on two
occasions causing inconvenience.
(b) The alarm on the premises went off whilst the worker was
alone there. An outsider was allowed in and he removed
all fuses. Eventually, the worker recalled the code for
switching off the alarm.
(c) The worker requested non payment of P.A.Y.E. and
P.R.S.I. This is a serious offence and could not be
tolerated by the Company. This was especially serious
given that the worker would be engaged in accounts work.
(d) The worker did not contact the Company until 3.20 p.m.
on one occasion when out sick.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having regard to the terms under which the worker was employed
and the circumstances under which she was dismissed the Court
recommends that she be granted a sum equal to three weeks pay as
compensation for the loss of employment.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
__________________________
14th March, 1988 Deputy Chairman.
A.K./J.C.