Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95669 Case Number: LCR15153 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: CARL SCARPA STORES (Represented by MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES (IRELAND) LIMITED) - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
The Court was presented with conflicting evidence from the
parties.
It is clear that the new manager was under instructions to change
the operations of the shop and consequently tensions arose within
the business.
The Court is of the view that the new requirements were made clear
to the claimant but there is no agreement on what subsequently
transpired.
Taking into account all aspects of this case the Court does not
recommend compensation but does recommend that the claimant be
given a suitable reference bearing in mind that there was no
complaint about her performance for 6 months of her employment.
Division: Mr Flood Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95669 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15153
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
CARL SCARPA STORES
(REPRESENTED BY MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES (IRELAND) LIMITED)
AND
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company as
a sales assistant on 14th October, 1994. A new manager was
appointed to the store in April, 1995.
In the period May/June, 1995 the worker was warned on a
number of occasions in relation to her time keeping and work
performance. Her employment was terminated on 26th June,
1995. The worker claimed that she has been unfairly
dismissed and referred the matter to the Labour Court on 15th
November, 1995 under Section 20(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place in
Waterford on 26th March, 1996.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union rejects management's statement that the worker
had a poor attitude towards her work or that she
constantly attended late for work.
2. The first occasion that punctuality was raised with the
worker was 8 months after she had commenced her
employment and 4 weeks after the appointment of a new
manager. This related to the worker arriving a couple
of minutes late on the shop floor.
3. It was the worker's understanding that she was
progressing well in her employment. She received no
complaints from management during the first 8 months of
her employment in relation to her work.
4. The worker was treated unfairly by management. It is
the Union's contention that a decision to dismiss was
taken well in advance of her dismissal date. The
Company advertised for a full-time sales assistant on
the same day that the worker was spoken to about trivial
issues. She was subsequently replaced immediately
following her dismissal.
5. No valid reason has been put forward by the Company to
justify its decision. There is nothing in the worker's
contract of employment to allow the Company dismiss the
worker without a valid reason. In the circumstances the
Union is requesting that the Court award appropriate
compensation and that a suitable reference be issued to
the worker.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was warned on a number of occasions
concerning her time keeping and work performance.
2. She was employed on a temporary contract which was of a
week-to-week nature. Under such a contract the Company
could have exercised its right to terminate the contract
on issuing a weeks notice to the worker. Regardless of
this, the worker was given an opportunity to improve her
performance.
3. On the second occasion a warning was issued the worker
was told that unless there was an immediate improvement
her employment would be terminated.
4. The Company acted reasonably in the circumstances. The
worker was afforded every opportunity to improve. She
failed to do so and as a consequence her position with
the Company was terminated.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court was presented with conflicting evidence from the
parties.
It is clear that the new manager was under instructions to change
the operations of the shop and consequently tensions arose within
the business.
The Court is of the view that the new requirements were made clear
to the claimant but there is no agreement on what subsequently
transpired.
Taking into account all aspects of this case the Court does not
recommend compensation but does recommend that the claimant be
given a suitable reference bearing in mind that there was no
complaint about her performance for 6 months of her employment.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
29th April, 1996 Finbarr Flood
F.B./D.T. ________________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.