Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95369 Case Number: LCR14845 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: ROYAL LIVER ASSURANCE - and - A WORKER |
Claim by the worker that he was unfairly dismissed.
Recommendation:
The Court considered carefully the written and oral submissions of
the claimant and the oral submission of the Company.
Having considered all the issues raised in this case the Court
finds that the Company procedures used in this case were
unacceptable and that the dismissal was unfair.
Normally, in such circumstances, the Court would recommend
reinstatement but as the claimant has indicated that he does not
see this as an option, the Court has not considered this option.
The Court recommends that the Company pay #1,300 as compensation
to the claimant in full and final settlement of all outstanding
issues between the parties.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95369 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14845
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
ROYAL LIVER ASSURANCE
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the worker that he was unfairly dismissed.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker commenced employment with the Company on the 9th
of December, 1994, as `Agent' or `Home Services Financial
Adviser'. His collection area comprised Killinarden
(Tallaght) and Walkinstown. The worker was dismissed on the
29th of March, 1995. He claims that the dismissal was unfair
on the following grounds:-
(i) The Company failed to comply with its own dismissal
procedures;
(ii) The reasons given by the District Sales Manager for the
dismissal, if they were true, which they were not, did
not provide sufficient reason for dismissal.
The Company rejected the worker's claim. The worker sought
to have the dispute investigated by a Rights Commissioner,
but the Company declined to attend a Rights Commissioner's
hearing. The worker referred the dispute to the Labour
Court, on the 14th of June, 1995, in accordance with Section
20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
The Court investigated the dispute on the 21st of July, 1995.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Company's failure to comply with procedures:
(1) The disciplinary procedures as set out in Royal
Liver document dated February, 1990 (details
supplied to the Court) state that:
"at every stage of the procedure, the employee will
be informed, in writing, of the outline of the
disciplinary charge being brought";
and that
"at each stage of the procedure (other than serious
misconduct) staff will be advised at least ten
working days in advance of any discipline
interview."
The procedures regarding verbal warnings clearly state
that the person must be advised that one is called to a
`disciplinary interview' and reminded of one's right to
be accompanied. Any verbal warning arising from this
procedure has to be confirmed in writing and should
indicate-
"the nature of the complaint, the lifetime of the
warning and state that a further default on
conduct, work standards or capability will result
in further disciplinary action being taken.... The
employee will also be advised of his/her right to
appeal to the Divisional Manager......".
These procedures were not applied. There are further
steps in the procedure such as a written warning for a
second offence of a serious nature and a final written
warning with the right of appeal to the Personnel
Manager. The following requirement is laid down in this
procedure-
"Appeals under the warning procedure must be made
in writing within twenty one days of the
discipline interview. The employee will be given
the full opportunity to state the grounds on which
the appeal is based and to give his/her version of
the facts".
Where a further `default on conduct, work standards or
capability' is concerned the `employee may be
dismissed'. The following procedure applies-
"The employee will receive a letter under the terms
of the Society's Rule 30 requesting him/her to
attend for interview before the Personnel Manager.
The letter will specify the allegations made
against the employee and confirm the right to be
represented ... From the date of receipt of the
Rule 30 letter the employee will be given 10 days
in which to indicate if he/she wishes to have a
personal interview with the Personnel Manager. If
however, the employee wishes to make his/her case
in writing then 15 days will be given.
If a decision is taken to dismiss the employee, the
dismissal will be confirmed in writing stating the
grounds for the action taken and confirming the
right of appeal. The letter of dismissal will also
specify the time limit within which the former
employee may appeal to a Rights Commissioner /
Employment Appeals Tribunal."
None of the procedures set out above was applied.
(Details of correspondence between the parties supplied
to the Court).
2. Insufficient reason for dismissal:
(i) The Company attempted to justify the dismissal on
the ground that the worker failed to keep two
appointments:
The reasons provided then by the worker (details
supplied) are more then adequate to satisfy any
reasonable employer. The Assistant District Sales
Manager was informed of the worker's unavailability
for the first meeting and in the case of the
second, the question of being on time was beyond
the worker's control (details supplied).
(ii) The Company claims that the worker commented that
"it may be impossible to bring collections up to
date in the Killinarden area".
The worker did not state that it was impossible but
that it "may be impossible". Management were being
alerted of the extreme difficulty experienced in
this area which was not uncommon among other
collectors. The worker would have been failing in
his duty if he had not pointed out the difficulties.
Every effort was being made to collect monies in
the area.
3. At no stage was the worker informed that he was on
probation or that the disciplinary procedures did not
apply to him.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is aware of its disciplinary procedures.
These, however, are not invoked until the worker
concerned is outside his probationary period. The
worker, in this case, was on probation for 12 months.
2. The worker was dismissed due to a lack of competence on
his part. He was insufficiently productive and his
targets were not being met. He failed to meet the key
objectives set for him.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court considered carefully the written and oral submissions of
the claimant and the oral submission of the Company.
Having considered all the issues raised in this case the Court
finds that the Company procedures used in this case were
unacceptable and that the dismissal was unfair.
Normally, in such circumstances, the Court would recommend
reinstatement but as the claimant has indicated that he does not
see this as an option, the Court has not considered this option.
The Court recommends that the Company pay #1,300 as compensation
to the claimant in full and final settlement of all outstanding
issues between the parties.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
1st August, 1995 Finbarr Flood
M.K./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.