Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91649 Case Number: LCR13534 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: IN SHOPS LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Dispute concerning the alleged unfair dismissal of the worker.
Recommendation:
5. From the evidence presented to the Court both in writing and
at the hearing the Court is of the view that, given the nature of
the job required by the Company and the undeveloped structure of
the Company as the claimant found it, inevitable difficulties
arose which were dealt with in a less than ideal fashion by both
parties. It may be that further efforts by both parties and a
longer trial period might have resolved the problems.
In the circumstances the Court recommends that the claimant be
given a good reference and any outstanding monies due together
with a payment of an additional two weeks' pay in settlement of
the claim.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Brennan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91649 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13534
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
PARTIES: IN SHOPS LIMITED
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the alleged unfair dismissal of the worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The worker was employed by the Company on 13th May, 1991
as general manager. The worker's employment was terminated by
the Company on 13th July, 1991. The Company stated that the
employment of the worker was not going as expected and that it
wished to terminate her employment.
2. The worker received 2 weeks' pay in lieu of notice. The
worker sought a Labour Court investigation into the alleged
unfair dismissal by letter dated 2nd December, 1991. A Labour
Court investigation under Section 20(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969 took place on 13th January, 1992. The
worker agreed to be bound by the recommendation of the Court.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Since leaving school 10 years ago the worker had only 2
jobs, both with long service (4 years). On being contacted by
a recruitment Agency to work with the Company, the worker
viewed this as being her last place of employment and a place
to build a career. Prior to being offered the position of
general manager, the worker was interviewed for a total of 6
hours over 2 interviews. The position was attractive from the
point of view of salary, position and prospects. On these
considerations the worker left a secure position as Area
Manager with an international company.
3. 2. While employed with the Company the worker worked long
hours and received consistent praise for her efforts and
work-rate (details supplied). In the 8 weeks the worker was
employed the warehouse was revamped and new systems were put
in place. Delivery times improved from 2-3 days to the same
day or within 24 hours and new staff were recruited. The
worker was shocked to be told after only 8 weeks that she did
not fit in, with the existing structure. The worker received
only 2 weeks' salary in lieu of notice despite a commitment to
4 weeks pay. There was no probationary period involved.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. At interview the Company was very impressed with the
worker and her experience. Almost immediately after her
starting with the Company, a number of major incidents
occurred with staff (details supplied to the Court). After 2
weeks, her workrate slackened considerably.
2. The Company was forced to terminate the worker's
employment because of difficulties with staff caused by the
worker. During the worker's tenure as general manager, sales
were at an all time low. The worker was weekly paid and
received 2 weeks' paid notice. The Company has no further
obligations to the worker.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. From the evidence presented to the Court both in writing and
at the hearing the Court is of the view that, given the nature of
the job required by the Company and the undeveloped structure of
the Company as the claimant found it, inevitable difficulties
arose which were dealt with in a less than ideal fashion by both
parties. It may be that further efforts by both parties and a
longer trial period might have resolved the problems.
In the circumstances the Court recommends that the claimant be
given a good reference and any outstanding monies due together
with a payment of an additional two weeks' pay in settlement of
the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
23rd January, 1992 ----------------
J.F./U.S. Chairman