Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90223 Case Number: LCR12957 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: CHIP CHASE LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Claim by a worker concerning his alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
5. Having studied the written submissions on this case and the
further verbal submissions made at the hearing and taking into
account that the employee was on a trial period, the Court does
not find grounds to sustain that the dismissal of the employee was
unfair.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90223 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12957
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: CHIP CHASE LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by a worker concerning his alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was employed in July, 1989, by a store
trading under the Super Value banner in Santry. His pay was #230
per week. He was employed as a chargehand on the delicatessen
counter. The owner of the store, in November, 1989, put the
worker on notice of dismissal and he was working out his notice
when the store was taken over by the Company here-concerned. The
manager of the shop requested the new owners to retain the worker
on a trial basis. This was on the basis that the worker suggested
that his difficulties with the previous owner were caused by
inadequate systems in the old set-up and personality conflict.
The worker's pay with the new Company was #180 per week. This was
increased when the worker outlined personal financial difficulties
that he was having. In mid-January, 1990, the Company decided to
dismiss the worker as it was felt that he could not run the
delicatessen counter to the Company's requirements. He was paid
one weeks' pay in lieu of notice. The worker alleged that he was
unfairly dismissed and on 8th March, 1990, he referred the matter
to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation under
Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. Prior to the
Court's investigation of the matter on 26th June, 1990, the worker
agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker has worked in the delicatessen business since
1977. At no stage has any of his employers been unhappy with
his work. He left a secure job at Beaumont Hospital to take
up the position in the shop in July, 1989. At one stage it
was indicated to him that he was doing a good job and that he
might be put in charge of the delicatessen counter of three of
the Company's branches.
2. At one point in time he was questioned about the level of
the Christmas stock returns. The worker explained that it was
not at the delicatessen level and suggested that theft or
stock being wrongly keyed in at the cash register might be
responsible. The manager dismissed this explanation even
though there were new untrained girls working the cash
registers and new staff doing the stock returns. No regard
was given to the worker's concerns about security in the store
even though this had been a problem from the time one of the
large retail chains occupied the same premises.
3. The worker felt ill on 11th January, 1990, and attempted
to let the manager know this. However, everytime he tried to
talk to the manager, the manager just walked away. The worker
informed the checkout supervisor that he might not be back
after lunch because he was ill. On doctor's advice he stayed
out of work for a few days. When he returned to work on 15th
January, 1990, the manager told him he was being dismissed and
he was escorted off the premises.
4. The Company have stated in a reference that the worker was
very capable of doing his job, however, at interviews for jobs
since his dismissal it has been pointed out that if he was any
good he would not have been let go. The worker feels that he
was unfairly dismissed and that as a result his career in the
delicatessen area is now finished.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. When the Company took over the shop in November, 1989, it
was decided to retain the worker concerned and provide him
with an opportunity to prove himself. He was employed as a
chargehand on the delicatessen counter for a three month trial
period. His duties and responsibilities were clearly
explained to him. However, it became clear during the trial
period that he could not meet the standards required by the
Company.
2. It is Company practice to discuss departmental performance
in detail on a weekly basis with the chargehand. It emerged
that the delicatessen area was not performing well in terms of
increasing turnover and that targets were not being met. This
was at a time when the other departments in the store were
performing very well. As the problem emerged in the
delicatessen area the manager explained to the chargehand
concerned the basics of running the delicatessen in terms of
margins, pricing, promotion policy etc.. He also repeated the
trial nature of the position. The Company did everything
possible to encourage the chargehand. However, despite the
encouragement, support and advice it was clear that the
chargehand could not do his job to the Company's requirements.
3. The Company, during the course of the chargehands
employment, made every effort to facilitate him. At his
request, the Company increased his wages and provided
additional working time in an effort to help him with
financial difficulties.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having studied the written submissions on this case and the
further verbal submissions made at the hearing and taking into
account that the employee was on a trial period, the Court does
not find grounds to sustain that the dismissal of the employee was
unfair.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
_________________________
20th July, 1990. Chairman
B.O'N./J.C.