Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91523 Case Number: LCR13483 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: ABC WORKWEAR - and - A WORKER |
Alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
5. The Court regrets that the employer in this case failed to
attend the Court hearing or submit any evidence regarding the
matters at issue. Having fully considered the submission of the
claimant and the supporting evidence which she presented, the
Court is of the view that she was misled as to the status,
capacity and organisation of the Company and that her prospective
earning capacity was misrepresented. The Court is satisfied,
given the evidence before it, that the performance of the worker
concerned could not, reasonably or fairly, have been grounds for
dismissal. The Court therefore finds that she was unfairly
dismissed and that she was dismissed without adequate notice.
Accordingly the Court recommends that the Company pay her a sum of
£1,800 in full and final settlement of her claim.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91523 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13483
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
PARTIES: ABC WORKWEAR
T/A CLIO FORDE CAREERWEAR
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment as a sales
representative with the Company in May, 1991. She did not receive
a written contract of employment. She was dismissed on the 30th
July, 1991 because of her alleged poor performance as a sales
representative. The worker claimed that her dismissal was unfair
and referred the issue to a Rights Commissioner for investigation.
The Company objected to such an investigation. On the 12th
September, 1991 the worker referred the dispute to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation under Section 20(1) of
the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The worker agreed to be bound
by the Court's recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute
on the 11th November, 1991. The Company did not attend the
hearing.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker concerned left a well paid job to take up a
position as sales representative with the Company. However
details regarding salary and conditions of employment were
misrepresented to her by the Company at interview. She was
told by Management that the average representative was earning
£12,000 to £15,000 per annum. When the worker commenced
employment she discovered that representatives in the Company
earned £5,000 - £8,000 p.a. The worker was informed that she
would receive commission of 4%. Up to the date of termination
of employment she has received no commission and to her
knowledge no other representative in the Company has been paid
commission since September, 1990. During the worker's term
of employment she acquired eight contracts (details supplied
to the Court). She received no commission for these orders.
The worker was told at interview that all her expenses would
be paid by the Company. In fact all expenses with the
exception of petrol allowance were borne by the worker. She
was forced to use public transport during the first three
weeks of her employment and accordingly could not actively
pursue sales calls during this time.
2. The worker was given samples to use (in order to obtain
new orders) from the retail shop while new samples were being
made up in the factory. The worker discovered that the retail
shop was opened to dispose of garments, originally incorrectly
made up orders, which were then sold off. The worker
concerned never received new samples and concluded that she
was given sub-standards samples which were incorrectly sized
garments to show to prospective companies who subsequently
cancelled orders (details supplied to the Court). The worker
was not advised at interview that on acquiring orders she
would have to do the required measuring. This task used up
valuable sales time, quite apart from the fact that measuring
up should only be done by an experienced tailor/tailoress.
3. The worker was advised at interview that she was on a two
month trial period. Her term of employment lasted for eleven
weeks and exceeded the probation time. She contends that if
she was not achieving satisfactory sales her employment would
have been terminated within the two months trial period. She
feels that it was fair and reasonable to conclude that once
the trial period had expired then Management accepted that her
work was satisfactory. The Company has an above average
turnover rate in staff. During her eleven weeks of employment
the worker witnessed the dismissal of two other sales
representatives and a receptionist. The longest serving sales
representative is one year in the Company's employment.
4. The Company terminated the worker's employment on the 30th
July, 1991 on the grounds of poor sales performance and the
loss of one contract (details supplied to the Court). She was
given three days notice. Her P.45 was postdated to the 6th
August, 1991 without reimbursement. The contract was not lost
due to any action on the part of the worker concerned but
because of Management's decisions in relation to costs, choice
of fabric, and method of payment. The Company's tender was
more expensive than competitors, quality of fabric was
unacceptable to the prospective client, and the method of
payment (50% deposit and 50% balance to be paid on a C.O.D.
basis) was completely unacceptable. The worker's sales
performance was not at fault. The worker found it extremely
difficult to portray the Company as a professional, efficient
and worthwhile one and she found it hard to attain worthwhile
contracts. She has been most unfairly treated by the Company.
Her prospects of obtaining worthwhile employment in the future
have been irreparably damaged. She is claiming compensation
in the amount of £8,000 which is equivalent to the earnings
she would have received in the six months period in her
previous employment.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court regrets that the employer in this case failed to
attend the Court hearing or submit any evidence regarding the
matters at issue. Having fully considered the submission of the
claimant and the supporting evidence which she presented, the
Court is of the view that she was misled as to the status,
capacity and organisation of the Company and that her prospective
earning capacity was misrepresented. The Court is satisfied,
given the evidence before it, that the performance of the worker
concerned could not, reasonably or fairly, have been grounds for
dismissal. The Court therefore finds that she was unfairly
dismissed and that she was dismissed without adequate notice.
Accordingly the Court recommends that the Company pay her a sum of
£1,800 in full and final settlement of her claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
_______________________
28th November, 1991. Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.