Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95583 Case Number: AD9591 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: XTRAVISION (Represented by THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - and - A WORKER |
Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. DC28/95.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court is
of the view that the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation is
reasonable and should be upheld.
The Court, accordingly, rejects the appeal and so decides.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95583 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD9195
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 to 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: XTRAVISION
(Represented by the Irish Business and Employers' Confederation)
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. DC28/95.
BACKGROUND:
2. The appeal concerns a worker who commenced employment in the
Company's Newbridge branch on the 24th of May, 1994, in the
capacity of sales assistant. She was dismissed on the 25th of
January, 1995. She claims that she had not done anything which
warranted her dismissal and that she had received no written
warnings prior to her dismissal. The reasons given for her
dismissal were that she did not wear the correct uniform, that she
had been the subject of a customer complaint, that her work was
slow, and that she was unavailable to work on certain days. The
worker referred the matter to a Rights Commission for investigation
and recommendation. He found that the worker's dismissal could not
be deemed to have been unfair but that it had been implemented in
an unsympathetic and inconsiderate manner. He recommended that the
worker be paid an ex-gratia lump sum equivalent to 3 weeks' basic
pay in full and final settlement of her claim. The worker appealed
the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation on the 5th of October,
1995. The Court heard the appeal on the 27th of November, 1995.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. No written warnings was given prior to the dismissal.
Having written to the Managing Director of the Company,
the worker has yet to receive a response.
2. The allegations of the shop manager are refuted as
follows:-
(i) The worker recalls that she always wore her
uniform with the exception of the 2 or 3
occasions that she wore a polo-neck to protect
her against the cold in winter;
(ii) The contention that she was rude to a customer is
refuted. She does not have an abusive manner and
has been continually employed in the area of
customer service in employments elsewhere to the
satisfaction of her employers;
(iii) Whilst she may have been inefficient in
completing certain tasks at the outset of her
employment, her performance improved with
experience. She was, during the period, not
informed of any shortcomings;
(iv) At the commencement of her employment, she
informed the manager that she would be
unavailable to work Thursday and Friday nights
and was led to believe that this was acceptable.
3. She was given no opportunity to query any points raised
in the manager's affidavit as the manager was not present
at the Rights Commissioner's investigation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. While the manager made very effort to accommodate the
worker, her unavailability to work certain days became
increasingly problematic.
2. In the weeks following the commencement of the worker's
employment, the manager pointed out a number of areas
which needed to be addressed by the worker. These
included mistakes related to the 'cash drop', the
inaccurate completion of cover checks, abruptness with
customers and her continuing unavailability on Thursdays
and Fridays.
3. Her probation was extended by 3 months as the manager and
area manager concluded that the quality of her work and
knowledge of procedures was unsatisfactory, and that she
had shown no initiative regarding the performance of her
duties.
4. On a number of occasions she was found to be wearing what
was not the correct uniform, in spite of this having been
brought to her attention.
5. When the worker was informed that her employment was
being terminated, she was paid 1 week's wages in lieu of
notice. The Company also paid her the 3 weeks' pay
recommended by the Rights Commissioner.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court is
of the view that the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation is
reasonable and should be upheld.
The Court, accordingly, rejects the appeal and so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
18th December, 1995 -----------
M.K./U.S. Chairman