Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93385 Case Number: LCR14195 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: O'DRISCOLL O'NEILL LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties and the oral
evidence presented at the hearing, the Court is of the view that
the claimant was harshly and unfairly treated particularly as the
steps of the Company disciplinary procedure were not applied.
Although the claimant's performance did not meet the required
standards there was no in-depth examination to establish why this
was so or to confirm that the prescribed standards were in fact
realistic in relation to the job as a whole. In all the
circumstances of the case, the Court recommends that the company
make an ex-gratia payment to the claimant equal to three months
salary in full and final settlement of her claim. This payment is
in addition to her contractual entitlements.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93385 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14195
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1)
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: O'DRISCOLL O'NEILL LIMITED
(Represented by LK Shields & Partners Solicitors)
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company on
23rd November, 1992 as a receptionist. Her duties included the
following:-
Stationery control of insurance forms, general supplies and
printing supplies
Control of monitoring system for telephone messages,
recording of calls/graphs, diary list, time keeping records
Ordering of couriers
Incoming and outgoing post
Incoming and outgoing faxes
Cost control, programming, standards/procedures of phones
Reception area and dealing with customers
The worker's employment was terminated with effect from 8th April,
1993. The worker claims that she was unfairly dismissed. The
Company rejected the claim.
On 18th June, 1993 the worker referred the matter to the Labour
Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969
and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. The Court
hearing took place on 12th August, 1993. An invitation to attend
at a Rights Commissioner's hearing was declined by the Company.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. During the course of her employment with the Company the
worker was led to believe that management were satisfied with
her work.
2. In early 1993 the worker was assessed in relation to the
Company seeking to attain the approved quality mark and ISO
9002. The results of the assessment were satisfactory.
3. At the time her employment was terminated management
informed the worker that they were pleased with her work and
that it was due to its financial position that it could no
longer afford to employ her.
4. The worker was unfairly treated and should be
compensated for her loss. She was replaced 5 days after her
dismissal by a person who is related to a member of
management. This person had been interviewed by management
while the worker concerned was still in the emloyment of the
Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has recently been awarded the approved
quality mark and ISO 9002. All employees are aware of the
Company's dedication to quality and of the need to strictly
adhere to the Company's quality manual.
2. During the course of her training by the Company's
training officer, the worker at no stage indicated that she
had any difficulty with any of her duties or the standards
required of her.
3. The Company received a number of complaints from
customers concerning the manner in which the worker discharged
her duties.
4. As a result of the deterioration in the worker's work
the Company's training officer spoke to the worker on a number
of occasions. It was pointed out to her that her work
performance was not up to the standard required and that an
improvement in line with the standards set out in the
Company's quality manual was required.
5. The worker was offered further training but declined the
offer.
6. When the worker's performance did not improve the
Company had no option but to terminate her employment.
7. While the Company supplied the worker with a reference,
it avoided making reference to the worker's work performance.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties and the oral
evidence presented at the hearing, the Court is of the view that
the claimant was harshly and unfairly treated particularly as the
steps of the Company disciplinary procedure were not applied.
Although the claimant's performance did not meet the required
standards there was no in-depth examination to establish why this
was so or to confirm that the prescribed standards were in fact
realistic in relation to the job as a whole. In all the
circumstances of the case, the Court recommends that the company
make an ex-gratia payment to the claimant equal to three months
salary in full and final settlement of her claim. This payment is
in addition to her contractual entitlements.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
20th September, 1993 ---------------
F.B./U.S. Chairman
NOTE:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.