Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD915 Case Number: LCR13185 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: ST GEORGE LEISURE LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Claim by the worker concerning her alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
6. In the absence of evidence of a contractual "trial period",
any formal record of dissatisfaction with the employee's work
performance or an acceptable reason for withholding the payment of
wages until after banking hours, the Court, having considered all
the evidence presented considers that the employee's dismissal was
unfair. In the circumstances the Court recommends that the
Company pay the employee #750 in full and final settlement of her
claim.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Brennan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD915 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13185
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: ST GEORGE LEISURE LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY JOHN B O'CONNOR & CO SOLICITORS)
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the worker concerning her alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment as a receptionist
with the Company on 25th June, 1990. She contends that on
Thursday 11th October, 1990, she did not receive her wages as
usual. She was told that they were locked upstairs in the office.
On Friday, 12th October, 1990, her day off, she phoned the Company
to find out when she could collect her wages. She was told to
come in at 2.00 p.m. The worker maintains that when she arrived
at the Company her wages were not there. The rest of the staff
were also waiting for their wages. At approximately 3.30 p.m. the
staff discovered that the manageress was in the office. It
appeared to the worker that the wage cheques were being
deliberately delayed until after the banks had closed. The worker
concerned phoned the accounts office and was told to come and
collect her cheque. When she did so the Manageress told her to
wait. The wage cheques were given out to the staff at 3.45 p.m.
approximately. The worker maintains that she was then informed
that there was a phone call for her in a room off reception. The
Manageress was on the phone. The worker says the Manageress was
abusive towards her and told her that if she had a problem she
should talk to the Managing Director about it.
3. The worker concerned was not due back in work until Sunday,
14th October, 1990. She arrived at work at 10.00 a.m. At
lunchtime the Manageress and the Managing Director arrived. The
worker was called into the office and the Managing Director said
he wanted to discuss the events of 12th October, 1990. The worker
was not prepared to talk in front of the Manageress and asked
could she speak to the Managing Director alone. The Manageress
refused to leave and the Managing Director informed the worker
that she was being dismissed. The worker believes that her
treatment by the Company was unfair and that she was unfairly
dismissed. This is denied by the Company. On 18th December,
1990, the worker referred the matter to the Labour Court under
Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations act, 1969. Prior to the
Court's investigation of the matter on 29th January, 1991, the
worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker concerned should have received her wage
cheque on the Thursday. This was normal practice. When she
went to the office on the Friday, her cheque was not ready as
she had been led to believe. It appeared that the cheques
were being withheld till after the banks had closed.
2. At no stage was the worker rude to the Manageress nor
did she refuse to talk to the Managing Director about the
events of the Friday. She did refuse to discuss the matter in
front of the Manageress and asked to speak to the Managing
Director on his own. This was refused.
3. At no stage during her three and a half months of
employment was she told she was unsuitable or that her work
was unsatisfactory. If her work was unsatisfactory then she
would not have been given responsibility for opening the
premises on a Sunday morning and being the sole receptionist
on duty on a Sunday morning.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. On Friday, 12th October, 1990 the worker concerned
called to the Company's premises at approximately 12.00 noon
to collect her wages. She was informed that the person who
signs the cheques was not on the premises and the issuing of
cheques was being deferred until approximately 4.00 p.m. as a
result. There was no policy on cheques being available at any
particular time on a Friday. The worker concerned became
abusive and used foul language criticising management and the
Company. This was done in full view of customers and other
staff members.
2. When confronted by the Managing Director on Sunday, 14th
October, 1990, in relation to her behaviour, she said she did
not want to discuss it and refused to talk about it. The
Managing Director told her that her behaviour left him no
alternative but to terminate her employment. She was paid all
her entitlements.
3. The Company contends that the termination of the
worker's employment was just and equitable because her
employment was on a trial basis and her performance during the
period of her employment was totally unsatisfactory. Her
attitude towards customers and the manner in which she dealt
with them was not acceptable. She did not perform her basic
duties, such as taking messages and dealing with telephone
queries in an accurate and professional manner. Her attitude
to members and management was totally unacceptable and her
general in-discipline was a disruptive influence on other
staff members.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. In the absence of evidence of a contractual "trial period",
any formal record of dissatisfaction with the employee's work
performance or an acceptable reason for withholding the payment of
wages until after banking hours, the Court, having considered all
the evidence presented considers that the employee's dismissal was
unfair. In the circumstances the Court recommends that the
Company pay the employee #750 in full and final settlement of her
claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
13th February, 1991 ----------------
B O'N/U.S. Chairman