FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : CAHILL MAY ROBERTS (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Owens Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a worker who was employed by the Company, through a recruitment agency, to carry out temporary Summer work for a fixed period from the 17th of July until the 29th of August, 1997. Her duties were to include providing cover for colleagues and assisting in the Telesales department.
Following a period of 4 days' employment, the worker was dismissed. She claims that her dismissal was unfair and the manner of her dismissal (i.e., by means of a telephone call from the Recruitment Agency to her home) was irregular and upsetting to her.
A few days after she was dismissed, the worker's father contacted the Company seeking payment to her of one week's pay in lieu of notice. The Company paid the week in lieu, having been assured by the worker's father that the payment would be in full and final settlement of the matter.
The Company claims that the worker's dismissal was warranted on the grounds that she was unsuitable, her attitude and behaviour being deemed by the Company not to be in line with its behavioural standards.
The worker sought to have the matter investigated by a Rights Commissioner but the Company declined to attend such a hearing. The worker referred the matter to the Labour Court, on the 24th of September, 1997, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court carried out its investigation on the 21st of November, 1997.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. On the 22nd of July, on her 4th day with the Company, the worker was advised by the Clerical Supervisor that she was to cover for a colleague during the first 2 weeks of August. When it transpired that the colleague in question was not taking holidays until the first 2 weeks of September, i.e., after the expiry of the claimant's contract, and that she would, therefore, not be in a position to provide cover, the supervisor, subsequently, became aggressive towards her, complaining about her performance. Despite being promised that she would be given her own desk the following day, the worker was dismissed, by telephone, that evening.
2. The manner of the dismissal was highly irregular and very upsetting. The true reason for the dismissal was that the Clerical Supervisor was trying to cover up her own error in relation to the date on which the worker's colleague was to go on holidays.
3. The claim that the worker's attitude/manner was unsuitable is rejected. She did not complain to her supervisor about being checked up on, as alleged by the Company.
4. The worker's father, while giving an assurance that the payment of one week's pay would conclude the matter, was acting without the worker's knowledge.
5. The worker should be paid compensation amounting to full pay for the duration of her 6-week contract.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company does not have a case to answer. The worker was with the Company for 4 days. Her behaviour was deemed not to be acceptable and she was informed of this locally by management, and by the recruitment agency with whom she had registered for temporary employment.
2. There was sufficient temporary work available and the worker's skills were not an issue. It was unacceptable that she should be abusive after just 4 days with the Company. Her dismissal was in accordance with the Termination/Dismissal clause of her contract.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions, the Court is of the view that the manner in which the claimant was dismissed was not in accordance with good industrial relations practice and, accordingly, recommends that she be paid an additional week's wages in compensation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
27th of November, 1997______________________
M.K./S.G.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.