FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : WOODIES DIY LIMITED - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. Woodies D.I.Y. is a subsidiary company within the Grafton Group plc. It is a multiple retailer with nine stores. Each store services the needs of the public in a broad range of "Do It Yourself" products (DIY).
2. The worker was employed by the Company initially as a sales assistant and subsequently as a Trainee Manager from the 28th June, 1995 to the 24th April, 1996. He was dismissed by the Company for having failed to successfully complete his probation as a Trainee Manager.
3. The worker claims that he has been unfairly dismissed by the Company. He states that he was never given any reasons by Management as to why he was being dismissed.
4. The Company states that the worker was spoken to on a number of occasions regarding his inadequate work performance which included ;
(a) Poor work rate;
(b) Poor attitude to work colleagues and poor interpersonal skills;
(c) Inability to supervise staff on various tasks;
(d) Lack of personal initiative;
(e) A general lack of interest in his role.
5. The worker refutes the Company's allegations. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the worker 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 the 26th August, 1996.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker claims that he was unfairly dismissed by the Company. He never received any warnings, either written or verbal, concerning his work performance.
2. When the store was being re-fitted, he worked thirteen hours per day, for 7/8 weeks, without payment of overtime. He was also promised a bonus which he never received.
3. The worker was never informed by Management that he was not performing his duties to a satisfactory standard.
4. As a result of his dismissal, the worker has found it difficult to obtain alternative employment because he cannot explain to potential employers why his former employment was terminated.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is Company policy that all staff are subject to the completion of a satisfactory six -month probationary period.
2. The worker was spoken to by local management on a number of occasions regarding his overall work performance in the store.
3. The worker was treated no differently to other employees on probation in the Company.
4. The Company extended the worker's probationary period of training by three months to give him the opportunity to improve his work performance.
5. The Company rejects the allegation that the worker was unfairly dismissed. He was given every opportunity to improve his work performance, but failed to reach the standard required by the Company.
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 manner in which the claimant was dismissed was not in conformity with what would have been expected as good practice.
In all the circumstances of the case the Court considers the claimant should be provided with a suitable reference.
The Court notes a bonus of approximately £300 was paid to staff working during the refitting of the shop.
It is considered the employee should have received this sum on termination of his employment.
In full and final settlement of this dispute the Court recommends the claimant be paid the sum of £500 and that he be issued with a suitable reference.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
12th September, 1996______________________
L.W./S.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.