Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89248 Case Number: LCR12418 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: TECHNICO COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE AND FINANCE |
Claim by the Union that a worker was unfairly dismissed.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
Taking account of the fact that the claimant was still on
probation, the Court does not find it unfair that her employment
was not continued. The Court notes that the Company is prepared
to provide the claimant with a reference.
The Court recommends accordingly.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89248 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12418
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: TECHNICO COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE AND FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union that a worker was unfairly dismissed.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned in this dispute recommenced employment
with the Company on 3rd October, 1988. She was employed as a
credit control clerk, on a probationary basis. Prior to being
taken on, she had worked in the Company as a temporary employee
from an employment agency. The Company's business involves the
installation and maintenance of telephones. The workers' duties
included the seeking of payment from customers who were overdue.
During the course of her three month probation a number of
difficulties arose regarding the performance of her duties. There
is a conflict of evidence on the precise nature of these
difficulties and the manner in which they were dealt with. It is
agreed however that on 13th December, 1988 she was interviewed by
the Credit Control Manager and advised of the Management's
dissatisfaction with her performance in certain areas. Her
probation period was extended by two months. The Company contend
that this was an agreed extension, the workers position is that
she went along with the extension because she felt that she had no
other choice. On 17th February, 1989 the worker was advised that
Management had decided not to offer her a permanent position. She
was let go and was paid one week's pay in lieu of notice. The
Union considered that her dismissal was unfair and sought to have
the matter investigated by a Rights Commissioner. The Company was
not agreeable to this investigation. Accordingly, on 5th April,
1989 the Union referred the matter to the Labour Court under
Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Union
agreed to be bound by the Courts decision. The Union is seeking
compensation for unfair dismissal.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker concerned had two and a half years' experience
with another Company and had excellent references. On being
offered the job, the worker was told that she would be given a
familiarisation course. This eventually took the form of one
and a half hours training with the previous incumbent. His
advice was to cut the ledger, i.e. reduce the number of
accounts she had to deal with, as there was too much for one
person in the amount she had to handle.
2. The worker's ledger contained 3,500 accounts, and her
fellow workers had 600 and 200 respectively. She worked
unsupervised in the position for a number of weeks following
up accounts. She made a number of approaches to the Credit
Control Manager, but did not receive a satisfactory response.
The worker noticed a difference in approach by her manager
when she was approached with similar queries from colleagues.
It is fair to say that there was a degree of interpersonal
difficulty between the worker and her boss (details supplied
to the Court).
3. The Company has claimed that the worker was easily
harassed, however the job is a stressful one. The Company's
business, telephone installation and maintenance, gives rise
to numerous queries and difficulties. Given the nature of the
work and the lack of support from the Company, the worker
handled the queries extremely well. An examination of the
ledger balances shows that the worker was managing to do her
job very effectively (details supplied to the Court).
4. At the end of her probationary period the worker was
advised that she was doing a good job, but that she required
more familiarisation. During her extended probationary
period, the worker was constantly harassed by her Manager.
Prior to the completion of the two months extension, the
worker was called in by her Manager (who had been on holidays
for the previous two weeks) and dismissed. The Union believes
that the worker was unfairly dismissed without recourse to
proper representation or Company procedure and without there
being just grounds for her dismissal. The Union believes that
she should be compensated accordingly.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. During the probation period it became obvious that the
worker was having difficulty with her job and was spoken to on
16th November, 1988 and again on 13th December, 1988.
Management was concerned about her inability to cope with
handling customers, make common sense decisions and carry out
the duties allocated to her. It was management's view that
she lacked attention to her job and choose options which were
the easy way out and not always the best ones for the Company.
2. The worker failed to produce reports on her ledger as
requested. When management insisted she produced a previous
month's report. She was regularly in difficulties over her
inability to balance her daily cash totals and required
assistance to do it correctly. She also had at least 6
warnings about her failure to put on and take off customers
from the weekly stop list.
3. The worker failed to follow-up accounts promptly despite
several warnings. She did not follow up queries although
trained to do so and failed to liaise with other departments
in solving her queries on her ledger. In managements opinion
she was a person who got harassed easily. She was unable to
handle difficult customers and constantly called on her
supervisor to speak with her customers. Management also
formed the view that she resented attempts to guide and
correct her.
4. During management's interviews with her she complained
about the volume of work allocated to her. This contrasted
with previous employment references which indicated an ability
to handle 900 accounts (800 for Technico). The worker also
spent much of her time on personal calls, and involved herself
in training on word processing which was not part of her
duties.
5. The Company had strong reservations about her ability to
deal with credit control. Accordingly, the worker was given
the option of training in another area, but this was turned
down. As the worker was not a member of the Union during her
probationary period, interviews with her were conducted on a
personal basis. The Company contends that it acted fairly and
responsibly towards the worker and that it was within its
rights in letting her go.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
Taking account of the fact that the claimant was still on
probation, the Court does not find it unfair that her employment
was not continued. The Court notes that the Company is prepared
to provide the claimant with a reference.
The Court recommends accordingly.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
______________________
26th May, 1989. Deputy Chairman
P.F./J.C.