Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91613 Case Number: LCR13529 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: MASTERLINK FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED - and - TWO WORKERS |
Claim by two workers concerning their alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions of the parties both oral and
written it is the view of the Court that the Company dealt with
the complainants very shabbily.
That the Company had a right to terminate their employment given
the contracts the Court accepts. However the manner in which
the employees were treated, is in the view of the Court,
unacceptable.
The Court in considering redress is of the view that to
recommend re-instatement would be inappropriate. The Court
considers the complainants should be compensated in the amount
of £750 each and so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91613 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13529
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: MASTERLINK FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
and
TWO WORKERS
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by two workers concerning their alleged unfair
dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. In October, 1990, the Company recruited fifteen workers
including the two workers here-concerned. They were recruited
on temporary fixed term contracts as telesales operators. The
employment of five of the workers ended when their contracts
expired in August, 1991. The two workers concerned were among
this group. The workers concerned contend that the manner of
their dismissal was both shabby and unfair. They referred the
matter to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. The Company
was not agreeable to such an investigation. On 11th November,
1991, the workers referred the matter to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation under Section 20(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. Prior to the Court's
investigation on 19th December, 1991, the workers agreed to be
bound by the Court's recommendation.
WORKERS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. On 15th August, 1991, the workers concerned were
informed that their contracts, due to expire on 30th
August, 1991, would not be renewed. They were told that
the reason for this was because under the new legislation
for part-time workers, after three temporary contracts
workers had to be made permanent or else let go and as
there were no permanent posts available they would have to
be let go. They were also told that the Company had
received legal advice on the matter and that under the new
law they would be watched by the Labour Court and Revenue
Commissioners if the workers' contracts were renewed or if
they were taken back into a different department.
2. At the same time as these workers were being let go
another worker who was also being let go, was told by the
Company that they would try to re-employ her on a different
contract after a break of service. This worker was
subsequently re-employed on a temporary contract for three
months.
3. The two workers carried out their duties in an
exemplary manner. At no stage were they told their work
was in any way lacking. Indeed by letter dated the 14th
June, 1991, the Company paid tribute to their efforts and
on 14th August, 1991, a memo was issued to staff indicating
that with a new product introduction imminent training
would be provided. Given these circumstances it was not
unreasonable for the workers to assume their positions were
secure.
4. The workers concerned feel that the manner of their
dismissal was both shabby and unfair and believe that they
should be re-instated in their jobs. They also wish to be
compensated for the distress they have suffered through the
Company's actions and that the Court's Recommendation be
published in the in-house newsletter.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. All staff were recruited on temporary fixed term
contracts. This was to allow the Company assess the
requirements of the business and the suitability of the
telesales operators for permanent employment. All staff
were aware of the probationary nature of their employment.
The probationary nature of the employment was borne out by
the fact that some of the temporary staff were selected for
permanent employment and others, including the two workers
here concerned, were not.
2. The Company has fulfilled its contractual obligations
to the two workers and there is no basis for claiming that
they were treated unfairly. In a probationary situation
the Company has absolute discretion in exercising its
judgment in regard to the offer of permanent employment.
3. By April, 1991, the Company was satisfied that certain
members of staff should be offered permanent employment.
All members of staff were spoken to at this time. The
unsuccessful staff were told they could avail of a further
period of temporary employment until 30th August, 1991. On
15th August, 1991, the Company re-affirmed the expiry dates
of the contracts. Neither of the workers concerned
completed their contract to the end of August, 1991.
4. The Company requires a highly motivated and committed
staff, with a high level of interpersonal skills and the
ability to work as part of a team. Some staff members did
not display these skills and consequently were not offered
permanent employment. The Company felt it could recruit
staff externally who could make a more effective
contribution to the Company. Recruitment has taken place
and all positions are now filled.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties both oral and
written it is the view of the Court that the Company dealt with
the complainants very shabbily.
That the Company had a right to terminate their employment given
the contracts the Court accepts. However the manner in which
the employees were treated, is in the view of the Court,
unacceptable.
The Court in considering redress is of the view that to
recommend re-instatement would be inappropriate. The Court
considers the complainants should be compensated in the amount
of £750 each and so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
---------------------
15th January, 1992
B.O.N./N.Ni.M. Deputy Chairman