Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9187 Case Number: LCR13243 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: HORMANN ELECTRONICS LIMITED - and - A WORKER;BARRY C. GALVIN & SON, SOLICITORS |
Alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
Whilst noting the evidence of her previous employer who clearly
had the highest opinion of her conduct and capabilities, it is
clear that she did not give similar satisfaction to Hormann
Electronics. Her employment, at the time of her departure was
probationary thus in the circumstances the Court does not consider
her claim for compensation to be sustainable.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9187 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13243
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
PARTIES: HORMANN ELECTRONICS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY COAKLEY MOLONEY AND FLYNN, SOLICITORS)
and
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY BARRY C. GALVIN & SON, SOLICITORS)
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company on
the 22nd January, 1990 as a secretary/data entry/accounts clerk.
She had previously been employed by an engineering firm for over
three years. Her letter of application stated that she had all
the necessary qualifications to fulfil the post required. By
letter of 18th January, 1990 the Company offered the worker the
position of secretary/data entry/accounts clerk. Her letter of
appointment (details supplied to the Court) stated that she was on
a six months probationary period after which her status would be
reviewed. On the 2nd July, 1990 the Company terminated the
worker's employment on the grounds that she was unable to fulfil
her duties in a competent manner. The worker was given the
opportunity to resign and she tendered her resignation on the 2nd
July, 1990. She claimed that her dismissal was unfair and through
her legal advisor referred the issue to the Labour Court under
Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The worker
agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Court hearing
was held in Cork on the 13th March, 1991.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Shortly after taking up employment with the Company the
worker was informed by her immediate superior (the financial
controller) that the Company was in arrears in the accounts
department and that since an audit was taking place she was
requested to expedite her work and bring it up to date.
2. When she commenced work there were seventy people on the
payroll but this increased rapidly until eventually there were
one hundred and sixty workers on the payroll. In addition to
this vast increase in the workload she also had to carry out
typing duties for three directors of the Company in addition
to the financial controller.
3. Immediately after the audit in April, 1990 the worker
indicated to the financial controller that the work-load had
increased to such an extent that she found it difficult to
cope. In addition she found that she had to forego her lunch
break completely and also had to work from 8.00 a.m. to 7.30
p.m. Monday to Thursdays and until 5.30 p.m. on Fridays.
Following these representations the financial controller
agreed to split her work load. However, this was never
followed up.
4. Because of the longer hours and the increasing work load
her health began to suffer and she was unable to have proper
meal breaks following which she collapsed at work in June,
1990 from exhaustion. On her doctor's advice she remained out
of work for two days and forwarded the relevant medical
certificates to the Company.
5. On the 2nd July, 1990 the financial controller spoke to
her personally about her standard of work etc, alleging that
she had been out sick during the Company's busiest period and
referred to mistakes in the debtors and creditors ledgers and
during the course of a long interview directed her to tender
her resignation. In all the circumstances the worker felt
that she had no option but to follow his instructions
following which she typed out and signed the resignation as
directed. She has not been able to obtain any employment
since July, 1990 to date, and is seeking compensation.
6. The worker's previous employer (who attended the hearing)
stated that she had worked for him for a number of years and
was very efficient at her job and an excellent timekeeper.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Notwithstanding the fact that a considerable amount of
time was spent with the worker concerned in training her into
the systems as operated by the Company, it became quite clear
at an early stage that she was making a substantial number of
mistakes which required correction on a continuing basis. Her
immediate supervisor had cause to speak with the worker on a
number of occasions in relation to mistakes which were made
and she was given every opportunity to learn from her mistakes
and improve. However there was no improvement forthcoming.
2. She was referred to the financial controller so that she
would be under no mistaken impression as to her position in
the Company having regard to the numerous errors made by her.
Some errors resulted in a substantial amount of work having to
be re-done by third parties. Mistakes were made in relation
to delivery dockets, purchase orders, control accounts and
processing invoices in wrong currencies. Further difficulties
arose whilst the worker attended the switchboard in her
capacity as receptionist.
3. The worker was reprimanded on a number of occasions in
relation to the various errors, but there was no improvement
in her performance and several mistakes were repeated. Verbal
warnings went unheeded and there was no improvement in
attitude or attention to duties during the entire probationary
period.
4. It was decided therefore to terminate the worker's
employment on the 2nd July, 1990. Rather than dismissing her
and having her career record tainted by such a dismissal, she
was given the opportunity to resign. That offer was accepted
by the worker and a letter of resignation was furnished in
writing by letter dated 2nd July, 1990 (details supplied to
the Court).
5. The worker was not competent to do the work for which she
was employed having regard to previous experience and training
received. Further she was unable, and/or unwilling to learn
from mistakes made and despite numerous corrections and
warnings received, there was no improvement whatever in her
work performance. The Company was ultimately left with no
option but to terminate her employment.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
Whilst noting the evidence of her previous employer who clearly
had the highest opinion of her conduct and capabilities, it is
clear that she did not give similar satisfaction to Hormann
Electronics. Her employment, at the time of her departure was
probationary thus in the circumstances the Court does not consider
her claim for compensation to be sustainable.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
________________________
26th March, 1991 Deputy Chairman.
T.O'D/J.C.