Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8920 Case Number: LCR12310 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: J. P. & M. DOYLE LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Claim by a worker that he was unfairly dismissed.
Recommendation:
5. The Court notes that the claimant in this case did not ask
the Court to recommend his re-instatement or to award monetary
compensation.
Taking into account all the circumstances of the case the Court is
satisfied that the claimant was not well treated by the Company in
that it appears he was recruited to a position which did not
equate with his qualifications and to some extent was mislead as
to the nature of the post. However, the Court does not consider
that he was unfairly dismissed from his employment. The Court so
decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8920 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12310
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: J. P. & M. DOYLE LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by a worker that he was unfairly dismissed.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company in addition to being auctioneers and estate agents
are also involved in livestock sales. The worker concerned in
this dispute commenced employment with the Company on June 20th,
1988. His job title was that of assistant accountant. In
addition to normal accounting duties, the worker also had
responsibility for customer transactions at various livestock
sales organised by the Company. At these markets when a customer
makes a purchase the procedure is that he or she goes to the
counter where the invoice is totalled and commission added. The
customer settles his account by cash, credit, cheque, or set-off
against sales. In order to avail of the credit or cheque method
of payment, the customer has to be known to someone behind the
counter. An important aspect of the worker's job was the
supervision of the counter, and the dealing with customers. At an
early stage of the worker's employment, this duty became a matter
of contention between him and his employers. The Company
contended that he was too slow in dealing with customers, and that
the requirements in this area had been emphasised at the interview
at which he was hired. On 12th July, 1988 a member of Company
management interviewed the worker and informed him that there
would have to be an immediate improvement in the area of customer
transactions. The worker contends that this interview was carried
out in an abusive manner, and that it was completely unjustified
given that he was new to the job and in a learning period.
Following the interview the member of management contacted the
agency which had recruited the worker on behalf of the Company and
expressed his reservations. On July 25th, the worker was again
interviewed by the Company, and told that there would have to be
an immediate improvement in the area of customer transactions.
The worker states that he pointed out that he was a close second
to the interviewer in terms of his performance on counter duties,
despite the fact that the interviewer had many years experience in
the job. The worker also contended that he had many further
duties to perform apart from attending to the counter. During the
following two weeks the relationship between the parties declined
further. (Details supplied to the Court). On Friday 5th August,
1988 following a sale of livestock the worker was informed that
the Company was not satisfied with his performance, and that they
would be seeking a replacement. He was told that he could, if he
so wished, remain in the employment of the Company for a few weeks
until such time as he had secured alternative employment. The
worker continued in the Company for the next six weeks, after
which he was given two weeks notice of dismissal. He was let go
on 4th October, 1988. The worker considered his treatment by the
Company to be unfair and unreasonable. On 30th December, 1988, he
wrote to the Labour Court requesting that the matter be
investigated by the Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. The worker agreed to be bound by the
recommendation of the Court. A Court hearing took place in Dublin
on 17th February, 1989.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The vacancy advertised was for an assistant accountant and
was brought to the worker's attention by an employment agency.
The job specifications included computer experience, accounts
experience, capability to work under pressure and the handling
of large amounts of cash. The worker had experience of this
nature over a number of years, and was more than capable of
carrying out this type of work. (Details supplied to the
Court).
2. The Company Secretary started his summer holidays on the
day that the worker joined the Company. The worker was left
to try and find his own way. Although his predecessor
was still working with the Company, he was very busy and found
little time to help train the worker.
3. Given his lack of experience of counter-work, the worker's
progress in learning this area of the job was perfectly
adequate. (Details supplied to the Court). At the interview,
he was told that he would have to attend two or possibly three
sales per week. In the event, this turned out to be three or
four per week.
4. If the worker was in any way slow in dealing with
customers it stems from two main reasons:-
(a) A natural and necessary caution when dealing with
transactions involving large sums of money,
(b) A lack of personal knowledge of the clients, which
would have enabled him to more speedily expedite
credit transactions.
In spite of these factors and the fact that he had other
duties to perform apart from the counter work, the worker was
still second in terms of the number of transactions handled,
and was only outperformed by somebody who had over twenty
years experience.
5. On being told of his imminent dismissal from the Company,
the worker sought and was promised a list of reasons. To
date, these have not been provided. The worker believes that
there are three main reasons for his being let go.
(1) When his predecessor left the Company there was a
redistribution of his workload, which resulted in
there being less work for the worker.
(2) Two additional staff members were recruited who had
a family relationship with the owners of the
Company. This resulted in an overstaffing
situation, and the worker as the non-family member
was the obvious one to be let go.
(3) The Board of the Company came to realise that they
had employed somebody too qualified and experienced
to perform what were essentially clerical duties,
with the consequence that he was too expensive for
the work which he had to do.
Having re-evaluated its needs the Company decided to let the
worker go on unjust and spurious grounds. (Details supplied
to the Court).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker's duties and responsibilities were clearly
stated at the interview stage and at subsequent meetings. He
accepted the job with the Company knowing exactly what was
involved. The Company clearly identified the area where his
performance was not up to standard, offered him help and
assistance and the opportunity to improve. Despite this and
the warnings that were given his performance remained
unacceptable.
2. The Company reached its decision to terminate his
employment on 5th August, 1988. While management would have
been within its rights by simply giving one week's notice,
they decided to allow him the opportunity of seeking
alternative employment. This opportunity was not availed of
and the Company finally terminated his employment some eight
weeks later. The Company's busiest period is October and
November. Therefore terminating the worker's employment at
this time caused the Company major problems. However, his
continued employment at his unsatisfactory pace would have
resulted in greater problems. The Company acted in good faith
at all times. It clearly identified the job to be done and
stated the area where the worker was unsatisfactory, and gave
him help and assistance. Finally when it became obvious that
for whatever reason he was simply not capable of doing the
job, it gave him a total of eight weeks to seek alternative
employment. Unfortunately the worker was not suited to the
job and the Company had no option but to terminate his
employment.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court notes that the claimant in this case did not ask
the Court to recommend his re-instatement or to award monetary
compensation.
Taking into account all the circumstances of the case the Court is
satisfied that the claimant was not well treated by the Company in
that it appears he was recruited to a position which did not
equate with his qualifications and to some extent was mislead as
to the nature of the post. However, the Court does not consider
that he was unfairly dismissed from his employment. The Court so
decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
___8th____March,___1989. ___________________
P. F. / M. F. Deputy Chairman