Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9660 Case Number: LCR15124 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: HEMPEL PAINTS IRELAND LIMITED (Represented by KEN WRIGHT) - and - A WORKER |
Alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
The Court has fully considered all of the issues raised by the
parties in their oral and written submissions.
The Court finds that the Company, in the manner in which they
dismissed the claimant, acted unfairly and contrary to what would
have been expected of any reasonable employer. Given all of the
circumstances, the Court recommends that the claimant be given
three months salary as a lump sum in full and final settlement of
her dispute with the Company.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9660 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15124
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
HEMPEL PAINTS IRELAND LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY KEN WRIGHT)
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company, which is a subsidiary of an international
organisation, distributes specialist marine paints in
Ireland. The worker was employed on 1st November, 1994 as
Administrative Manager in the Accounts Department. Following
a number of operational difficulties and staff shortages, the
worker claims that she was unfairly dismissed on 31st August,
1995. The Company agrees that there were a number of
difficulties, but states that the worker's performance was
below the required standard and that, regrettably, it had no
option but to terminate her employment.
The worker referred her claim to the Labour Court on 7th
February, 1996 in accordance with Section 20 (1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the
Court's Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing was held on
15th March, 1996.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Due to the resignation of the only other office worker,
the worker concerned accepted the responsibility of both
jobs during the months of January and February, 1995.
She received no support from Management and was not
afforded training in the second job. She worked until
11.00 p.m. many nights and several week-ends without
remuneration for the extra time worked.
2. Various operational difficulties arose including the
collapse of the computer system. The installation of a
new system created extra work involving training,
conversion and clearing the resulting backlog of work.
The worker also contacted the office daily to deal with
any problems which arose while on one week's holiday.
3. The worker had no prior indication of her impending
dismissal in August, 1995. She had overcome many
obstacles to bring all work up to date and to implement
a new computer system. She did not receive any written
or verbal warnings from Management.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was initially on probation for 3 months,
which was subsequently extended as a result of her poor
performance. A formal appraisal review was carried out
in April, 1995 and the worker was informed of the
improvements that were required of her.
2. The Company accepts that there were some operational
difficulties outside of the worker's control, but staff
in Wales and Denmark were available to assist her
whenever required.
3. Six weeks pay in lieu of notice was paid to the worker.
The position has since been filled by someone with
similar qualifications, who has met the required
targets.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has fully considered all of the issues raised by the
parties in their oral and written submissions.
The Court finds that the Company, in the manner in which they
dismissed the claimant, acted unfairly and contrary to what would
have been expected of any reasonable employer. Given all of the
circumstances, the Court recommends that the claimant be given
three months salary as a lump sum in full and final settlement of
her dispute with the Company.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
1st April, 1996 ____________________________________
D.G./D.T. Tom McGrath
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Ms. Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.