Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9668 Case Number: LCR15122 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: DUNNES STORES - and - A WORKER;MANDATE |
Alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
4. The Company informed the Court that it would not be attending a
hearing into this dispute. The absence of any submission either
verbal or oral from the Company obviously creates difficulties for
the Court and may indeed affect the outcome.
On the basis of the evidence submitted the Court is satisfied that
the claimant was treated unfairly and accordingly recommends
payment of £500 as compensation.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9668 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15122
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: DUNNES STORES
and
A WORKER
Represented by MANDATE
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The worker was employed as a sales assistant with the
Company's Northside store from 28th August, 1995 to 5th
January, 1996 when she was dismissed.
2. The worker was engaged in the operation of check outs
during her employment. The Union claims that the
worker's dismissal was unfair. The reasons given by
management was that her register results were not up to
standard and that she had a disruptive influence on other
staff members. The Union rejects these claims.
3. The Union referred the dispute to the Labour Court under
Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and
agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. The
Court investigated the dispute on 19th March, 1996. The
Company indicated by letter that it would not be
attending the Court hearing.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker's probationary period was three months. She
was dismissed after four and a half months of employment
with the Company.
2. The Company should have provided the worker with further
training if her work was not up to standard.
3. It was ten weeks before the worker was informed that
there was a problem with her register results.
4. The Company's staff handbook advises that "in the case of
inadequate performance further training may be given at
any time".
RECOMMENDATION:
4. The Company informed the Court that it would not be attending a
hearing into this dispute. The absence of any submission either
verbal or oral from the Company obviously creates difficulties for
the Court and may indeed affect the outcome.
On the basis of the evidence submitted the Court is satisfied that
the claimant was treated unfairly and accordingly recommends
payment of £500 as compensation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
28th March, 1996 ---------------
L.W./U.S. Chairman
NOTE:
ENQUIRIES CONCERNING THIS RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO
MR LARRY WISELY.