Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91173 Case Number: LCR13307 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: MEGA RECORDS LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
in this case.
It is noted that the worker in question was on probation and the
Court in the past has consistently supported the employers right
to terminate employment during this period. However in this case
the Court is of the opinion that the worker not alone suffered
serious injustice but was caused great personal distress by reason
of the operation of what the Company purport to be the standard
recruitment practices. Certain of these practices are, in the
Court's opinion, in themselves very questionable.
For this reason the Court is quite exceptionally recommending the
reinstatement of the worker for a further probationary period, or
failing this the payment to her of #500 as compensation for the
distress and incovenience she suffered.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91173 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13307
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: MEGA RECORDS LIMITED
T/A H.M.V
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment as a sales assistant
with the Company on 12th November, 1990. The position was a
permanent one, subject to a three month probationary period and a
satisfactory reference. On 26th January, 1991, she was informed
that she was being dismissed because of a bad reference from her
previous employer. The Company declined to provide her with
further details of the contents of the reference due to its
confidential nature. The worker decided to follow the matter up
by talking to her previous employer, Golden Discs. Golden Discs'
Personnel Manager informed her that legally he was the only person
entitled to issue a reference about an employee and that he had
not issued any reference concerning her. The Company consequently
informed the worker that the reference had been obtained from the
Manageress of the Golden Discs outlet she had worked in. This
Manageress informed the worker had she had received a
questionnaire from the Company which she had completed and
returned. She denied that she had put anything derogatory in her
reply to the questionnaire. The worker subsequently had a meeting
with the Company's General Manager, however, she contends that she
did not get any satisfactory reason for her dismissal. On 15th
March, 1991, the worker referred the matter to the Labour Court
for investigation and recommendation under Section 20(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. Prior to the Courts investigation
on 7th May, 1991, the worker agreed to be bound by the Court's
recommendation.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker concerned had previously worked for the Golden
Discs Group for a total of eight years. She applied for the
position in the Company because she felt it would be a good
career move. She was interviewed for the position by the
Manager of the Company's Grafton Street Branch, where the
vacancy existed, and was informed by telephone on the same day
that she had been successful. The worker contends that at the
interview she was not informed that a reference from her
previous employer would be required. She believed she got the
job on the basis of her past experience and her interview
performance.
2. On 26th January, 1991, when the worker was dismissed she
asked the Manager of the Branch if her work had not been up to
standard. She was informed that her work was very
satisfactory and the reason for her dismissal was because of a
bad reference from her previous employer.
3. The Personnel Manager of Golden Discs, said that he had
not issued any reference and that legally he was the only
person who could issue a reference. The Manageress who
completed the questionnaire provided by the Company had only
worked with the worker for four months. The Manageress denied
she had put anything derogatory in her responses.
4. The Company agreed to release a copy of the questionnaire
to the worker on condition Golden Discs gave written
permission for them to do so. Golden Discs declined at this
stage to get involved in any argument with the Company.
5. The worker feels that she has not received any
satisfactory explanation for her dismissal. She is totally
confused as to why she should be treated like this after
putting so much effort into her work during her employment
with the Company. In fact, during her employment she was
never spoken to regarding her work performance being lacking
in any way. At a meeting with the Company's General Manager
on 11th March, 1991, vague references were made to Company
standards and the fact that they may have been lacking in her
case. However, no specific or clear reasons for dismissal
have ever been given. The worker feels very frustrated at her
shabby treatment and believes that she should be re-instated.
COMPANY's ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It was a requirement of the job that a satisfactory
reference must be provided by the previous employer and this
requirement was not met, therefore the dismissal was fair
in the circumstances. The worker was informed that such a
reference would be sought. When the Company sought a
reference, it was doing so impartially.
2. In pursuing the previous employer for a reference the
Company was following normal procedures. The practice of
doing so on a confidential basis is well established.
3. The Company has the right to terminate employment during
the probationary period. This occurred in this case because a
requirement of the job (i.e. the provision of a satisfactory
reference) was not met and the fact that the reference
received confirmed reservations that the Company had regarding
the worker.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
in this case.
It is noted that the worker in question was on probation and the
Court in the past has consistently supported the employers right
to terminate employment during this period. However in this case
the Court is of the opinion that the worker not alone suffered
serious injustice but was caused great personal distress by reason
of the operation of what the Company purport to be the standard
recruitment practices. Certain of these practices are, in the
Court's opinion, in themselves very questionable.
For this reason the Court is quite exceptionally recommending the
reinstatement of the worker for a further probationary period, or
failing this the payment to her of #500 as compensation for the
distress and incovenience she suffered.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
--------------
5th June, 1991. Deputy Chairman
B.O'N/J.C.