FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ADVANCE TYRE LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr Walsh |
1. Alleged decision to terminate the contract of employment of a manager.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker has been employed by the Company since 1974. She was appointed manager of the Company's Waterford outlet on 22nd January, 1992.
The Union claims that, due to the Company's hostile attitude towards the worker, her position has become untenable. The Union feels that it would be better to negotiate terms for ending her contract of employment, and is seeking a package based on 4 weeks' pay per year of service, exclusive of statutory entitlements. Following a number of meetings, the Company offered £15,000, inclusive of statutory pay. The Union is seeking £30,000. The Union feels that if the worker does not terminate her employment she will eventually be forced to leave and bring an action under the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 and 1991.
The Union attempted to refer the dispute to a Rights Commissioner and the Labour Relations Commission, but the Company was not agreeable to either. The Union then referred the dispute to the Labour Court on the 6th October, 1996, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A hearing took place on the 17th December, 1996 in Waterford. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was employed in a clerical capacity until 1990. When her manager at the time retired she found herself working as acting manager until her formal appointment in 1992. Her rate of pay was approximately £50 per week less than the rate for managers in the Company's other outlets. This anomaly was never rectified.
2. The worker had numerous difficulties with management over the years. In July, 1994, she took 2 weeks' annual leave. After returning, she found that there was a cash shortage. The accounts had been in order before she left. The worker was blamed for the shortage and the amount (£187.00) was deducted from that year's bonus. A similar incident occurred in 1995. Following the end-of-year stock audit for 1994, the worker was severely reprimanded for some minor problems which had been corrected. There were a number of similar problems (details supplied to the Court).
3. When a member of staff who had health problems retired with a severance package of £13,000, the worker was blamed for the fact that the money had to be paid. The money was added to the cost of the depot, resulting in it finishing second last instead of the midway point in Company's performance scale. The worker has no function in the selecting/interviewing of staff and was given no support when staff presented disciplinary problems.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is not aware of any decision to terminate the worker's contract of employment. There were a number of off-the-record discussions with the Union regarding problems with the worker but the Company did not initiate them.
2. There have been problems with the worker, including ongoing losses in the Waterford depot totalling £70,000 since 1992. There was a meeting in June, 1996 between the Company and the worker/Union to discuss the problems. The Company hoped that, following the meeting, the worker would address the issues but to date this has not happened.
3. While there was an improvement in the worker's performance between 1992-1995, there were problems, including cost increase, in the Waterford depot in 1996. Most other depots had a good year in 1996. Every year, a business plan is drawn up for each depot and the worker can make any comment or proposals for improvement she wishes.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is accepted by the Company that the manager's performance up to 1995 was satisfactory and that there had been an improvement in the depot's financial performance to that date.
The Court is unclear as to why the working relationship has, over a short period of time, deteriorated to the extent it has or, indeed, why the Company's attitude became so negative in relation to this manager after 1 year's disimprovement in the depot's performance.
However, there appears to be unfinished business between the parties and the requirements for a further meeting to discuss this year's plans.
The Court, therefore, recommends that this meeting take place as soon as possible, after which the parties can, if they wish, refer back to the Court.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
9th January, 1997______________________
C.O'N./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.