Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95617 Case Number: LCR15051 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: DUNNES STORES (Represented by MATHESON, ORMSBY, PRENTICE.) - and - MANDATE |
Alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions from the parties, the Court
recommends that, as the Company erred in not implementing its own
procedures, a sum of £100 should be paid to the claimant.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Pierce Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95617 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15051
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
DUNNES STORES
(REPRESENTED BY MATHESON, ORMSBY, PRENTICE.)
AND
MANDATE
SUBJECT:
Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
The dispute concerns a claim on behalf of one worker who was
employed on the 19th of May, 1995 in the capacity of sales
assistant. Following a number of meetings with the store
manager, the worker was dismissed on the 19th of August,
1995. The Union claims that her dismissal was unfair. The
Company argues that the dismissal was reasonable and came
about because the worker appeared to be neither interested in
retail work nor able to cope with it. The Union sought,
unsuccessfully, to raise the matter with the Company on a
number of occasions. On the 24th of October, 1995, the Union
referred the dispute to the Labour Court, in accordance with
Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The
Court carried out its investigation on the 13th of December,
1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The worker has been diligent and efficient and has shown
interest in carrying out all duties allocated to her while
employed with the Company.
2. No clear indication was given to her by the Company of areas
which, in its view, she needed to improve her performance.
3. At the meetings with the Company on the 15th of July and the
8th of August, she was not invited to have a friend or
colleague present. This is in breach of the Company's
regulations and is contrary to natural justice.
4. It appears that the store manager, at the meeting on the 15th
of July, had decided to dismiss the worker, and had no
intention of allowing her time for improvement in her
performance.
5. The worker wished to work on the registers and the manager's
refusal to allow her to work there indicates that the manager
was intent on dismissing her.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. As the worker appeared not to be progressing at the normal
pace following her induction, it was necessary for her to be
instructed again on proper merchandising and customer
handling.
2. On several occasions, the worker left the shop floor without
permission. She also failed on occasion to report to her
supervisor at the commencement of her shift. These matters
were raised with her and she was informed that she could not
be trained on a register until she satisfied management that
she was competent in all aspects of her work.
3. When met by management on the 15th of July, various aspects
of her work were raised with her. She was then advised that
her performance was unsatisfactory. When invited to respond,
she gave no feedback at all.
4. She was given time to improve her performance but
unfortunately the required improvement was not forthcoming.
5. At a subsequent meeting, the worker was advised that she was
not suited to the retail business and that her employment
would be terminated.
6. The worker's education and qualifications were such that she
was better qualified for the position of laboratory
technician for which she had applied in the local laboratory.
By her own admission, she did not like dealing with customers
as it made her stressed.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties, the Court
recommends that, as the Company erred in not implementing its own
procedures, a sum of £100 should be paid to the claimant.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
3rd January, 1996 Evelyn Owens
M.K./A.K. -------------
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.