Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94657 Case Number: AD958 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: STYLETEX LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. BC63/94 concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
The Court having considered the views expressed by both parties in
their oral and written submissions finds that the employee was
achieving levels of performance and improving on them in a manner
which would be reasonable for a worker in training in her first
employment, even allowing for the level of skill required.
The Court is not convinced that the reasons given by the Company
adequately explain the fall off in performance in the final two
weeks of her employment.
It is the view of the Court that given the obligations of the
Company to employees in their first employment and on probation
that greater effort could have been made to ascertain the cause of
the drop in performance including discussing the matter with her
and seeking to address any problems affecting the performance
levels, and counselling her regarding what was required of her.
In all the circumstances of this particular case only, the Court
decides the claimant should be paid the sum recommended by the
Rights Commissioner in full and final settlement of her dispute
with the Company.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Pierce Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94657 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD895
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
STYLETEX LIMITED
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No.
BC63/94 concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the manufacture of ladies fashions
outerwear for the home and export markets. It employs
approximately 170 workers.
The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company on
1st February, 1994, as a trainee in the finishing department.
Her duties involved the pinning and buttoning of garments.
Her employment was terminated on 1st March, 1994.
The worker claimed that she was unfairly dismissed and
referred the matter to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. The Rights Commissioner's
findings and recommendation are as follows:-
"FINDINGS
Having investigated the matter and having given full
and careful consideration to the points made by both
parties I have come to the following conclusions:
1. I am satisfied that the performance of the worker
had not reached the required level at the time of
her departure from the Company.
2. I also believe that the worker was not given
adequate training or counselling for the period of
her employment.
RECOMMENDATION
In the light of the above I must hold that in all the
circumstances the dismissal must be regarded as having
being unfair. I do not recommend reinstatement.
My recommendation is that Stylewear Limited should pay
the worker the sum of #250 and that this be accepted by
her in full and final settlement of this claim on the
Company.
The worker was named in the recommendation.
The Rights Commissioner's recommendation was appealed by the
worker to the Labour Court on 14th November, 1994 under
Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The
Labour Court heard the appeal on 24th January, 1995.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Management's explanation for the worker's dismissal is
unacceptable. On occasions she was left to seek the
assistance of a fellow trainee.
2. The worker was warned by a supervisor that she would be
out of the job within two weeks.
3. Management's complaints regarding dirty garments cannot
be justified. The worker received the garments in a
dirty stated. On other occasions she was left with no
work to do.
4. Management has treated the worker unfairly. Her
dismissal has caused her considerable inconvenience and
in the circumstances the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation is justified.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was aware that her employment was subject to
a three months probationary period, the level of
performance required and the repercussions if those
levels were not attained. The worker failed to meet the
level of performance required and the Company was left
with no alternative but to terminate her employment.
2. The Company cannot accept the Rights Commissioner's
findings that the worker was not given adequate training
or counselling. The Company provides a comprehensive
training programme for all its employees.
3. The worker's job of buttoning/pinning is a low skilled
job. The rate of output for this job has been in
existence for approximately 10 years. No previous
trainee had any difficulty in attaining the required
standards.
4. The worker was spoken to on a number of occasions
regarding her level of performance. Management
attempted to help and understand the worker's problems
but no information or effort was forthcoming from the
worker.
DECISION:
The Court having considered the views expressed by both parties in
their oral and written submissions finds that the employee was
achieving levels of performance and improving on them in a manner
which would be reasonable for a worker in training in her first
employment, even allowing for the level of skill required.
The Court is not convinced that the reasons given by the Company
adequately explain the fall off in performance in the final two
weeks of her employment.
It is the view of the Court that given the obligations of the
Company to employees in their first employment and on probation
that greater effort could have been made to ascertain the cause of
the drop in performance including discussing the matter with her
and seeking to address any problems affecting the performance
levels, and counselling her regarding what was required of her.
In all the circumstances of this particular case only, the Court
decides the claimant should be paid the sum recommended by the
Rights Commissioner in full and final settlement of her dispute
with the Company.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
13th February, 1995 Tom McGrath
F.B./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman