Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89376 Case Number: LCR12461 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: TALLAGHT POST OFFICE - and - A WORKER |
Alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
7. In the light of the submissions made the Court has come to the
conclusion that the worker was dismissed largely as a result of
the cut in payment to the postmistress, in which case, on the
basis of her seniority, there was an element of unfairness in this
worker being chosen for dismissal.
The Court therefore recommends that the worker be awarded an
amount equal to two weeks wages in compensation.
The Court further urges the employer to arrange that the worker's
tax affairs be completed as soon as possible.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89376 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12461
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: TALLAGHT POST OFFICE
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed on 2nd May, 1988 by the postmistress
of Tallaght Post Office. Her name was on An Post's list of
approved employees. The postmistress is paid a basic salary by An
Post which is calculated by reference to sales turnover on stamps
and parcels intake together with a commission based on sales of
television licences etc. All staff are employed by the
postmistress and paid by her from this salary.
3. The workers terms of employment were verbally agreed when she
commenced employment. No contract of employment was signed. Her
gross weekly wage was #140 and she worked a 5.50 day week. The
postmistress, her daughter and a fourth woman (Ms. A.) were also
employed in the post office on a full time basis. Ms. A. had
previously been postmistress of Aylesbury Post Office (which had
been closed down) and she commenced her employment in Tallaght
P.O. in September, 1988.
4. On 26th November the worker involved in the present case was
given one week's notice of the termination of her employment. She
finished work on 2nd December, 1988. She received the holiday pay
which she was due and her P45. The worker considered her
dismissal to be unfair and referred the matter to a Rights
Commissioner for investigation. Her employer was not willing to
be a party to such an investigation and therefore the
investigation did not take place. The worker referred the matter
to the Labour Court on 16th May, 1989 under Section 20(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Court hearing took place on
27th June, 1989. Prior to the hearing the worker agreed to be
bound by the Court's recommendation.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The worker considers that her dismissal was unfair. She
had not signed a contract of employment but was verbally
assured on several occasions that her job was permanent in
nature.
2. The worker was given no indication at any time that her
work was in any way unsatisfactory. She denies that she
experienced any difficulty in her work.
3. The worker has been unable to reclaim tax paid in 1988/89
due to the employer's returns not having been made up to date.
She did not receive a form P60 and her P45 is incorrectly
filled in.
4. The worker was not the most junior member of staff.
5. The worker has suffered considerable distress and
disruption as a result of her dismissal.
6. The worker is seeking:
(a) recognition of unfair dismissal
(b) financial compensation for loss of earnings and
distress and disruption
(c) resolution of her tax affairs.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The worker was employed on a trial basis as are all
employees at Tallaght Post Office. She proved to be
exceptionally neat in appearance and have a pleasant manner
but had trouble in coping with the the pace of work at the
counter, particularly in the operation of franking machines
and the weighing of parcels (details supplied to the Court).
2. At the end of October, 1988, An Post indicated that the
salary for the post-mistress in Tallaght would be reduced by
#7,500 due to the fall in revenue in stamps and parcel
intakes. This cutback did not occur until the end of
November, 1988 and the Postmistress was forced to let one of
the full-time staff go. Ms. A, mentioned above, had shown
herself to be well capable in the job, and had worked in a
local post office dealing with the same volume and type of
business as Tallaght Post Office. As her work rate, ability
and efficiency was greater than that of the claimant, the
postmistress decided that the latter would have to be let go.
3. The worker was given one week's notice and her holiday
pay. The tax affairs of the Post Office employees are in the
hands of an accountant.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. In the light of the submissions made the Court has come to the
conclusion that the worker was dismissed largely as a result of
the cut in payment to the postmistress, in which case, on the
basis of her seniority, there was an element of unfairness in this
worker being chosen for dismissal.
The Court therefore recommends that the worker be awarded an
amount equal to two weeks wages in compensation.
The Court further urges the employer to arrange that the worker's
tax affairs be completed as soon as possible.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
10th July, 1989 Deputy Chairman.
A.K./J.C.