Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90645 Case Number: LCR13141 Section / Act: S67 Parties: QUINNSWORTH LIMITED - and - IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION |
Claim by the Union for the reinstatement of a Supervisor.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the issues raised by the parties
in their submissions, has come to the conclusion, having regard to
all the circumstances, that the claimant had little alternative
but to terminate her employment, which in essence amounted to a
constructive dismissal.
The Court however, given the situation described, has concluded
that re-instatement would not be appropriate on this occasion and
accordingly the Court recommends that the claimant be paid a sum
of #2,500 in full and final settlement of the matter.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90645 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13141
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: QUINNSWORTH LIMITED
and
IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for the reinstatement of a Supervisor.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The worker concerned commenced employment as a checkout
No. 2 Supervisor on 28th November, 1988. She worked in the
Company's Dooradoyle Branch. The worker, who was not required
to serve any period of probation, had a rate of pay equivalent
to the 6th point of the sales assistant's scale.
2. In March, 1990, the Store Manager advised the worker at a
meeting of his dissatisfaction with her performance,
particularly in relation to her level of supervision. The
worker subsequently left the meeting and absented herself from
work. Following her contacting the Company's Training Officer
and her submission of a medical certificate she later resumed
duty. She was then offered an office position with the
Company but did not accept it. In July, 1990, the Store
Manager, following an incident in the check-out area, had a
serious discussion about supervision with the No. 1 and No. 2
Supervisors. He advised them of his dissatisfaction with
their performance. The No. 2 Supervisor again left the
workplace and did not return to work. She contacted the Union
who in turn contacted the Company to discuss the issue.
Following local discussions the Company's position was that
the worker had left her employment. The Union claimed that
the conduct of the Store Manager had forced the worker to
leave. The dispute was referred to the Conciliation Service
of the Labour Court on 20th September, 1990. It was the
subject of a conciliation conference on 26th October, 1990.
No agreement was reached at the conciliation conference and
both parties agreed to refer the dispute to a full Labour
Court hearing. The Court investigated the dispute in Limerick
on 4th December, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker, before commencing employment with the Company,
was given to believe that she would be employed as the No. 1
check-out Supervisor. This position was given to another
person and the worker was appointed as the No. 2 check-out
Supervisor. The Company was so impressed with the worker's
qualifications and experience that she was not required to
under-go a probationery period. The worker was placed on the
6th point of the sales assistants' pay scale and did not
receive any monetary recognition for her supervisory
responsibilities.
2. It is most unfair to blame the worker for the check-out
incident which resulted in the meeting and in her leaving her
job in July, 1990. The worker was on her day off when the
incident occurred. The worker felt that she had no
alternative but to leave her job following the sustained abuse
she received from the Store Manager at a meeting in July,
1990, when the check-out incident was being discussed. Nobody
should have to put up with the kind of language and abuse that
was meted out to the worker. Most companies will acknowledge
that managers should not act in this manner.
3. The Company's approach to the dispute has been
intransigent and less than helpful. It was quite happy to let
the situation drift until the worker indicated that she was
prepared to return to work. It then requested a meeting with
the worker, but in advance of the meeting, her P.45 was issued
to her by post. This action prejudiced the meeting and
clearly indicated that the Company did not want the worker to
return to their employment.
4. The Union rejects the Company suggestion that the worker
was not capable of carrying out her duties as a Supervisor.
Admittedly, she had a different approach to that of the Store
Manager - she endeavoured to motivate workers by being firm,
fair and courteous while he wanted her to be more aggressive
and overbearing.
5. The Union's position is that the worker was constructively
dismissed by the Company as a result of a Manager's behaviour
and by the issuing of her P.45 in advance of a meeting with
the Company. The worker is a mature and capable person who
has suffered a lot of anguish and financial loss as a result
of the July incident. The Union is seeking the reinstatement
of the worker to her former position, effective from July,
1990, with no loss of earnings. The Union does not wish to
discuss any forms of compensation payments in order to settle
the dispute.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Store Manager had genuine cause to be concerned with
the worker's performance as a Supervisor. It was clear to
him that she was not performing her job of supervising to
required standards. The Manager was concerned that staff were
controlling the worker rather than the worker controlling
them.
2. The worker walked away from her job in March, 1990, when
she was spoken to by the Manager about her inadequate
supervision. Following a meeting to discuss her performance
Company Management allowed the worker to resume duty. The
worker agreed to improve her performance and agreed with the
issues raised by the manager. In July, 1990, a further
meeting took place where the Manager spoke of his frustration
with both Supervisors not achieving standards previously
raised by him on a number of occasions. The meeting was
heated and serious and the Manager referred to incidents that
had undermined his authority. The Manager totally refutes any
suggestion that the meeting was unprofessional, abusive or
that abusive language was used. Following this meeting the
worker cleared out her locker and handed her management name
badge to the No. 1 Supervisor. She left the premises and did
not resume work. No further contact was made until the Union
contacted the Company two days later to discuss the worker's
position.
3. The worker's actions have undermined her own position and
made it untenable. The decision to abandon her employment was
her own entirely. Management have gone to very reasonable
lengths to resolve the matter amicably. Management did not
dismiss the worker. The worker left the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the issues raised by the parties
in their submissions, has come to the conclusion, having regard to
all the circumstances, that the claimant had little alternative
but to terminate her employment, which in essence amounted to a
constructive dismissal.
The Court however, given the situation described, has concluded
that re-instatement would not be appropriate on this occasion and
accordingly the Court recommends that the claimant be paid a sum
of #2,500 in full and final settlement of the matter.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
________________________
7th January, 1991. Deputy Chairman
A.McG./J.C.