Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90431 Case Number: LCR13022 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: LEISURE CORPORATION GROUP - and - A WORKER |
Alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having given consideration to the submissions of the
parties finds there were no reasonable grounds put forward for the
dismissal of the complainant and accordingly finds she was treated
unfairly notwithstanding the fact that she was on probation.
The Court notes the representative of the Company understood the
complainant had been paid one week's pay in lieu of notice. It is
the Court's view that the Company should ensure this payment has
been made.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90431 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13022
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: LEISURE CORPORATION GROUP
(REPRESENTED BY DOCKRELL FARRELL SOLICITORS)
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the acquisition, development and
operation of leisure centres. The worker concerned was introduced
to the Company through a business contact and was interviewed for
a position by a director of the Company. Her appointment was
subsequently confirmed by the board, and she commenced employment
as an executive assistant on the 17th April, 1990. She did not
receive a written contract of employment nor was the exact
description of her position defined. It was agreed verbally that
there would be a three month probationary period at the end of
which the Company would decide if she was suitable for permanent
employment. Her first assignment was to a post at one of the
Company's leisure centres as an assistant to the manager, in order
to gain experience of the leisure business. She had no previous
experience in this area. The worker claims that on the 24th May,
1990, at a meeting with the Company directors and the manager of
the leisure centre to discuss the operation of the centre she was
arbitrarily dismissed without notice or payment in lieu. The
worker referred the issue of her dismissal to a Rights
Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. The Company
was not agreeable to such an investigation. The worker then
referred the dispute to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of
the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the
Court's recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the 4th
September, 1990. Subsequent to the hearing a letter dated 10th
September, 1990 was received from Messrs Dockrell Farrell
enclosing copy of a pay slip and stating that the worker had
received an extra week's wages in lieu of notice.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker concerned has a financial background and is a
fluent German speaker. She was under the impression that her
position within the Company would involve travelling to
Germany in connection with the Company's business interest in
acquiring leisure centres. The Company explained that there
were many areas within the organisation where her talents
could be used and she was appointed to the leisure centre so
as to gain experience.
2. The leisure centre had serious staffing problems in
relation to punctuality, adequate shift cover, stock control,
cash records and the manning of games at the centre. The
worker tried to introduce various controls to run the centre
as efficiently as possible. She felt that there was a
definite improvement after a few weeks. She had a good
working relationship with the manager of the leisure centre
and also with staff under her control and experienced no
difficulties in the management of staff.
3. As time passed however the worker became increasingly
frustrated and unsettled with her position in the Company.
There was no mention by Management of any trips to Germany and
such trips were arranged without the worker concerned, despite
her fluency in the language. Sales were closed on Company
purchases without the involvement of the worker concerned.
She assumed that she had been recruited into the Company
specifically to be involved in these transactions.
4. The worker felt that she had very little responsibility at
the leisure centre where she claims people were hired and
fired in a very off hand fashion (details supplied to the
Court). She arranged the meeting with senior management on
the 24th May, 1990 as she felt her job, still without
contract, had no direction. She was amazed when one of the
Directors at this meeting advised her of her dismissal.
Allegations that other employees could not work with her could
not be substantiated by Management, who refused to discuss
their content or source. She was sacked on hearsay without a
right to reply.
5. The worker claims that she did not receive notice or
payment in lieu. The worker feels that she has been very
unfairly treated and that a slur has been placed on her
professionalism and on her integrity.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In a letter to a business associate of the Company dated
6th December, 1989 the worker expressed a genuine interest in
the possibility of employment. She readily accepted in
interviews prior to commencing employment with the Company
that she had no experience in the leisure business.
The Company's preference was, and is, for individuals with a
background in leisure. This was explained to the worker.
However, she was extremely eager to be given the opportunity
to prove herself within the leisure industry and her lack of
experience was overshadowed by her enthuasism and willingness.
She was given the opportunity to prove herself and she fully
accepted that if, in the view of the Company, she did not
prove suitable the relationship would be terminated.
2. She was appointed to one of the leisure centres in order
to gain experience and knowledge regarding the Companys
philosophies of operations, systems, customers and employees.
She was first assigned the task of making recommendations
regarding the operation of the centre based on her views.
3. Approximately three weeks after the commencement of her
employment a meeting was arranged between senior management,
directors of the Company and the worker. The purpose of the
meeting was to have a general discussion regarding the
operation of the leisure centre and to give other directors
and managers the opportunity to assess her progress. It was
agreed by Management that the worker did not appear to have
the ability to administrate and communicate with staff in a
fashion which would promote a good working relationship
between staff and management and between various members of
the staff themselves.
4. Subsequent to this meeting the worker was advised of the
views of the directors and management of the Company and of
the fact that she had not achieved a good working relationship
with other members of the staff. It was explained to her that
the Company's philosophy with its employees was to motivate
them by providing a good working environment, fostering a good
relationship and by encouragement rather than in a dictatorial
manner. This discussion did not have the desired effect and
the situation deteriorated dramatically.
5. It was decided by the directors of the Company that the
worker was wholly unsuitable for this or any other position
within the Company and that due to the genuine concern
expressed by other members of staff regarding the security of
their own positions it was decided that she should be
dismissed without delay. She was informed of this decision at
a meeting which was frank and to the point. The Company is
disappointed for the sake of the worker that she did not prove
suitable and hopes that she will put the experience behind her
and wishes her every success in the future.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having given consideration to the submissions of the
parties finds there were no reasonable grounds put forward for the
dismissal of the complainant and accordingly finds she was treated
unfairly notwithstanding the fact that she was on probation.
The Court notes the representative of the Company understood the
complainant had been paid one week's pay in lieu of notice. It is
the Court's view that the Company should ensure this payment has
been made.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
___________________________
18th September, 1990. Deputy Chairman.
T.O'D./J.C.