Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95120 Case Number: LCR14775 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: ATLANTIC HOMECARE - and - A WORKER |
Alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
5. The Court accepts the Company right to terminate employment
during probationary period for unsatisfactory performance.
However, in this case the manner and particularly the timing of
the dismissal was felt by the Court to be unsatisfactory.
Given that a major investigation was taking place into missing
stock at this time, there was every chance that the claimant's
dismissal would be seen by others in the Company as being linked
to the investigation.
The Company has indicated that there was no connection between the
two events and that there is no accusation against the claimant in
relation to the missing stock.
Having considered all the issues involved in this case the Court
makes the following recommendation:-
(1) The Company either by notice or in writing to all the
employees in the area, exonerate the claimant from all
suspicion in relation to the missing stock.
(2) The Company pay the claimant one additional week's pay
over and above payments already made, in full and final
settlement of this case.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95120 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14775
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: ATLANTIC HOMECARE
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The worker commenced work with Atlantic Homecare in
August, 1994 as a sales assistant and held that
position for approximately 3 and half months. The
worker was then offered a position in the stores. The
branch manager indicated to the worker that his work on
the shop floor was satisfactory and that he was not
obliged to take the position in the stores. The worker
accepted the new position.
2. On 11th December, 1994, a consignment of toys was
delivered to the stores. Following a check, it was
discovered that 8 NINTENDO game consoles were missing
and could not be accounted for. On the 16th December,
1994, the worker was informed by the branch manager,
that his employment was being terminated because his
work was unsatisfactory.
3. The Company objected to a Rights Commissioner
investigating the dispute. The worker then requested
that the dispute be referred to the Labour Court under
Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
The worker agreed to be bound by the decision of the
Court. The Court investigated the dispute on 2nd May,
1995.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker claims that when he was offered a position
in the stores he was assured by the branch manager that
his work on the shop floor had been satisfactory.
Also, he had been complimented by other staff who had
specific dealings with him in relation to his work on
the shop floor. The worker claims that management were
to brief him on the duties of a storeman when he took
up the position but the briefing never took place.
2. The worker claims that when the toys went missing
from the stores he and the security man were called to
the branch manager's office. The manager stated that
"they will be looking for somebody's head over this"
and implied that the worker would be held responsible
for the missing toys. There was a further interview
with the head of security of Atlantic Homecare
concerning the missing toys. On the 16th December,
1994, the worker was informed that the Company was
terminating his employment. The worker stated to the
Court that all he wanted was to clear his name in
relation to the missing toys. No other employee was
dismissed during this period.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was employed as a sales assistant from the
7th September, 1994 and his employment was terminated
on 16th December, 1994 as his overall attitude and
dedication to his work was not to the standard required
by the Company. In the short period of time that the
worker was with the Company he received two verbal
warnings and a written warning regarding his time
keeping and also in relation to his attitude to
customer service. The worker was moved from the sales
area of the Company to the stores as it was observed by
the branch manager that he was not "customer friendly".
2. As the worker was on probation, the onus was on him to
ensure that his time keeping and overall work
performance was of a high standard. He failed to do
so. The Company has the right to dismiss employees who
are on probation and who fail to reach the standard
expected by the Company. There was no connection
between the worker's dismissal and the toys which went
missing from the stores. The worker received 2 weeks'
pay in lieu of notice.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court accepts the Company right to terminate employment
during probationary period for unsatisfactory performance.
However, in this case the manner and particularly the timing of
the dismissal was felt by the Court to be unsatisfactory.
Given that a major investigation was taking place into missing
stock at this time, there was every chance that the claimant's
dismissal would be seen by others in the Company as being linked
to the investigation.
The Company has indicated that there was no connection between the
two events and that there is no accusation against the claimant in
relation to the missing stock.
Having considered all the issues involved in this case the Court
makes the following recommendation:-
(1) The Company either by notice or in writing to all the
employees in the area, exonerate the claimant from all
suspicion in relation to the missing stock.
(2) The Company pay the claimant one additional week's pay
over and above payments already made, in full and final
settlement of this case.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
24th May, 1995 _______________
L.W./U.S. Deputy Chairman
NOTE:
ENQUIRIES CONCERNING THIS RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO
MR LARRY WISELY, LABOUR COURT.