Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91667 Case Number: LCR13556 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION - and - A WORKER;MR. SHAY HENRY |
Claim by the worker concerning her alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having fully considered all of the views
expressed by both parties in their oral and written submission
finds the complainant was unfairly treated insofar as the
termination of her employment was concerned. In all the
circumstances, the Court does not consider it appropriate to
recommend that she be reinstated. The Court recommends
therefore that the complainant be paid an amount of £1,500 in
compensation.
It is noted that the Institute has undertaken to make available
to the complainant a suitably worded reference.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
_______________________
13th February, 1992
B.O.N./N.Ni.M. Deputy Chairman
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91667 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13556
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
PARTIES: INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
and
A WORKER
(Represented by Mr. Shay Henry)
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the worker concerning her alleged unfair
dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the
Institute as a clerk-typist on 2nd April, 1991. The position
was subject to 6 months probation. (Prior to this she had
worked for 3 months with the Institute as a temporary worker
through an agency). On 14th October, 1991, the Institute
informed the worker that her probation was being extended to
28th February, 1992, due to poor performance. The Institute
also informed her that they were deferring consideration on
refunding college fees pending her permanent appointment. A
meeting took place on 17th October, 1991, between the worker
and the Head of Personnel. At this meeting the worker said
that she did not understand why her probation was being
extended and asked about college fees which the Institute had
already agreed to refund. Due to the worker's uncertainty as
to why her probation was being extended another meeting was
arranged with the Head of her Section. Her Head of Section met
with her and outlined the areas of concern i.e. accuracy in
typing, reliability and speed in following procedures and
courtesy and confidence in dealing with customers. The worker
concerned was unhappy with the situation and referred the
matter to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. The
Institute considered this to be premature as her grievance had
not been discussed at local level. Further local meetings were
held at which the Institute outlined their dissatisfaction with
her performance. The Institute informed her that she had until
25th November, 1991, to confirm that she had accepted the
extension of her probation. At a meeting on 22nd November,
1991, she was given a letter to that effect. The worker stated
that she could still not understand or accept why her probation
was being extended. She was then given one week's notice. Her
employment terminated on 29th November, 1991. On 9th December,
1991, the matter was referred by the worker to the Labour Court
under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
Prior to the Court's investigation of the matter on 24th
January, 1992, the worker agreed to be bound by the Court's
recommendation.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. During the worker's time as a temporary clerk-typist
there were no complaints about her work. In fact she was
successful in her interview for a permanent position.
During her 6 months probation, an informal interview took
place with her Head of Section and no complaints were
voiced about her work. In fact she was to be promoted to
acting E.A. (a supervisory post) while the E.A. was on
maternity leave during the period October, 1991 to
February, 1992.
2. On 10th October, 1991, two incidents occurred. The
first involved a mix up over the provision of sandwiches
for a meeting involving the Head of Section. This
resulted from confusion and the absence of a colleague for
1.5 hours. As a result the worker was not present for the
meeting. The second incident occurred that afternoon when
the Head of Section informed the worker that she was
annoyed because there was a typing error in a report typed
by the worker and because the worker had not been there
for the meeting. As a result of these incidents, the Head
of Section informed the worker that she had asked
Personnel to extend the worker's probation by 3 months.
(Her probation was in fact extended by 5 months). The
error in figures for the report, which was typed on the
morning it was required, was literally just an error. The
worker concerned was a clerk-typist. Who should have
checked the figures? It was not the worker's
responsibility to check the figures.
3. The Head of Section informed the worker that she
'had' decided to extend probation i.e. the decision was
already taken without the worker being given the
opportunity to answer any allegations. The extension of
probation, with its implications for her future career,
the resulting non-payment of college fees, the resulting
loss of face occurring due to it being made common
knowledge was a punishment which far outweighed the
"crime".
4. The worker was not dismissed because she was
unsuitable. The Institute found her suitable for
promotion to an acting E.A. post after her probation was
extended. She was dismissed for failing to understand and
accept an unfair penalty, unilaterally imposed. Generally
a worker who has her probation extended after a hearing,
is not asked to understand or accept or reject the
penalty. In this case acceptance was required. By
acceptance, the Institute must have meant that she drop
the reference to the Rights Commissioner. When she did
not do so she was sacked. If the Institute's action is
not penalised it will mean that a person availing of
statutory machinery is jeopardising their employment.
INSTITUTE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In August, 1991, a formal meeting took place between
the worker and her Head of Section. At this meeting
deficiencies in her performance were outlined. As a
direct result of this meeting she went on a 2 day in-house
programme on 'personal effectiveness'. The Institute's
dissatisfaction with the worker was also pointed out to
her at meetings on 14th, 17th and 18th October, 1991, and
18th and 21st November, 1991.
2. Improvement had not been made during the probationary
period and rather than terminating her employment at that
stage, the Institute was willing to extend probation to
allow her the opportunity of proving herself. It was only
after her continual refusal to accept this extension that
the Institute decided that it had no option but to
terminate her employment. This is obvious from the letter
of termination which states "In these circumstances I must
reluctantly inform you".
3. In these circumstances the Institute has acted more
than fairly in its treatment of the worker. The worker,
by her actions, forced the Institute to take the line it
did and therefore she must accept the responsibility for
what occurred.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having fully considered all of the views
expressed by both parties in their oral and written submission
finds the complainant was unfairly treated insofar as the
termination of her employment was concerned. In all the
circumstances, the Court does not consider it appropriate to
recommend that she be reinstated. The Court recommends
therefore that the complainant be paid an amount of £1,500 in
compensation.
It is noted that the Institute has undertaken to make available
to the complainant a suitably worded reference.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
_______________________
13th February, 1992
B.O.N./N.Ni.M. Deputy Chairman