Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8964 Case Number: AD8925 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: UNICOL LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Appeal by the worker against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation BC 355/88 concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court agrees with the Rights Commissioner's findings that the
appellant was wrongfully dismissed. The Court, however,
considers that the amount of compensation recommended by him
should be increased to #1,200 which would be more appropriate
having regard to the various circumstances which gave rise to her
dismissal.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8964 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD2589
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: UNICOL LIMITED
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the worker against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation BC 355/88 concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced her employment with the Company
on the 8th July, 1988, as a legal secretary on a salary of #6,000.
Shortly afterwards she was moved to the accounts section and given
a salary increase of #1,500. While out on sick leave in October,
1988, the worker received a letter from the Company advising her
that her employment was being terminated on the grounds that in
its view she had not fulfilled her duties in accordance with
accepted standards. The worker rejected this, alleged
that she was unfairly dismissed and referred her claim to a Rights
Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. Following an
investigation on the 7th December, 1988, the Rights Commissioner
issued the following recommendation on the 14th December:-
"...I must hold that the worker was wrongfully dismissed
from her employment with Unicol Limited. I do not
however recommend reinstatement but I see the remedy
lying in compensation. I therefore recommend that
Unicol Limited pay to the worker, a sum of #850 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."
This Recommendation was rejected by the worker, principally on the
grounds that the compensation awarded was insufficient and she
appealed the matter to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Court hearing was held on the
24th February, 1989.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Because of the big backlog of work in the accounts
department, the worker was moved there despite the fact that
she had no previous experience in this type of work.
2. Contrary to what the Company says, the worker received no
formal training for this work. What training she did receive
was both infrequent and inadequate (details supplied to the
Court). Furthermore, in addition to her duties in the
accounts area, she also had to train in her replacement as
legal secretary.
3. The amount awarded by the Rights Commissioner is
inadequate considering the potential loss of earnings the
worker has suffered since her dismissal (up to the date of the
hearing the appellant still had not found alternative
employment) and the expenses involved in having C.V.s printed
and copied to send with job applications. The award also
fails to properly compensate for the tramua suffered following
the worker's dismissal. At the time of her dismissal she was
absent from work on certified sick leave (although due to a
mix-up the Company had not received her doctor's certificates)
and had only recently been promised a salary increase which
naturally led her to believe that she was doing well and had
procured a permanent position.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. During July, 1988 assistance was required within the
accounts department, as the accounting records had fallen
behind as a result of some problems with a new computerised
system that had been installed. Due to pressure from the head
office in London, priority was given to bringing this
situation up to date and the worker was asked to consider
taking on the duties of accounts clerk, responsible for data
entry, for posting of new business files, invoicing, and other
routine duties, such as preparing lodgements etc., and
maintaining cash books. Upon accepting this new position, she
was given an increase in salary of #1,500 per annum and it was
made clear by the general manager, in his letter of
confirmation to her, of the need for careful attention to
detail. He reminded her that "allowing mistakes to go
unchecked or uncorrected would not be tolerated", implying
that she would be 100% accountable for such lapses as may
occur.
2. The worker received a full job description at that time
and was also advised to contact the general manager, if she
was in any doubt or difficulty as to what was expected of her.
She received full training in the new business system (details
supplied to the Court) and her primary responsibilities were
to set up files for incoming new business and sales leads, the
input of invoicing data from debtor work cards and various
other sources, and the printing off of all relevant reports on
a daily basis. This was an important function within the
Company as the need for accurate and up to date invoices,
statements and client records was paramount.
4. 3. However, it appears that the worker was unable to perform
these duties to an acceptable level of accuracy and no
significant progress was made in clearing the backlog of work,
nor in improving the standard of accuracy of the client
records and by early September it had become necessary for two
staff from London to be seconded to the accounts department in
Ireland in order to try and resolve the general disorder of
the Company records relating to accounting.
4. When the Company's Group Finance Director (based in
London) visited the office in late September he found that
there had been many fundamental errors caused by the worker's
carelessness and insufficient attention to detail and that the
level of errors on invoices and clients files was
unacceptable. He explained at length to the worker what her
duties and responsibilities were, emphasising that she should
concentrate fully on the invoicing system. However, when he
returned to the office some two weeks later (by which time the
worker was absent from work) he found that none of his
instructions had been carried out and it was decided to
dismiss the worker. A letter of dismissal was subsequently
drafted and sent by courier to her house.
5. The Company concede that this was not the most acceptable
method of dealing with the matter and bearing this in mind,
along with the absence of formal warnings and notification
regarding unacceptable work standards during her brief term of
employment, she was paid an ex-gratia sum of #145 in lieu of
notice along with her holiday entitlements and a further offer
of #600 compensation was made at a later date. The Company
does not agree with the major part of the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation but does concede that some
compensation be considered.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court agrees with the Rights Commissioner's findings that the
appellant was wrongfully dismissed. The Court, however,
considers that the amount of compensation recommended by him
should be increased to #1,200 which would be more appropriate
having regard to the various circumstances which gave rise to her
dismissal.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Nicholas Fitzgerald
_______________________
21st March, 1989.
D. H. / M. F. Deputy Chairman.