Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94403 Case Number: LCR14599 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: HAMMILL AND HENDERSON TRADING AS "POUNDSWORTH" - and - A WORKER;FREE LEGAL ADVISE CENTRE |
Alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions from the parties, and noting
that the Firm failed to inform the claimant in writing that her
probation had been extended, the Court is of the view that she was
not fairly treated.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that she be paid compensation of
#200.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94403 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14599
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
HAMMILL AND HENDERSON TRADING AS "POUNDSWORTH"
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY FREE LEGAL ADVISE CENTRE)
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed by the Firm from 23rd September,
1993, until her dismissal on 18th February, 1994. Her duties
involved shop-floor work and operating the cash register. On
the morning of 18th February, 1994, the worker was called in
to a meeting with the manageress and the area manager. She
was informed that she was being given one week's notice.
When she asked why, the worker was told that management was
unhappy with her work performance, particularly her till
operation procedures.
The worker claimed that she was unfairly dismissed and
referred the dispute to the Labour Court on 2nd August, 1994,
under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A
Labour Court hearing took place on 17th October, 1994 (the
earliest date suitable to the parties).
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Workers received a verbal warning if their cash register
was either over or under by 99 pence on three occasions.
A third verbal warning resulted in a written warning.
In the worker's case no official written warning was
given. This is at variance with the Firm's staff
handbook (details of the handbook supplied to the
Court).
2. The worker had indicated to management on a number of
occasions that she was unhappy with the way the cash
registers were operated. Because of procedures (e.g.
mistakes on receipts not being signed for by the person
responsible or management, exchange of #20 notes for
change being unsupervised) it was possible for errors to
be attributed to the wrong person. Management did not
respond to the worker's approach to rectify the matter.
Again, this is at variance with the Firm's staff
handbook.
3. On the day she was dismissed, the worker was given no
opportunity to have a witness or representative with her
at the hearing. No evidence was produced to
substantiate allegations of till inefficiency. The
worker was never told that her three month probationary
period had been extended. The worker suffered
considerable distress because of her treatment by the
Company.
FIRM'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker received a first verbal warning on 17th
November, 1993, for a till shortage of #8.20. She was
retrained on the till operation the following day. On
27th January, 1994, the worker received a second verbal
warning for a till shortage of #8.00. She received a
third verbal warning on 3rd February, 1994, for a cash
shortage of #8.25. The worker had no explanation for
any of the cash shortages.
2. The worker was employed on a probationary basis.
Because of her poor work performances, she was never
confirmed as a permanent employee. Management had
expressed concern to her about work performance,
specifically her till reading.
3. The worker was fully trained on till procedure. At no
time did she indicate to management that she was unhappy
with the operation of the cash register.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties, and noting
that the Firm failed to inform the claimant in writing that her
probation had been extended, the Court is of the view that she was
not fairly treated.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that she be paid compensation of
#200.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
1st November, 1994 Evelyn Owens
C.O'N./D.T. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.