FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : WEAVE COUNTRY COTTAGE INDUSTRIES LTD (REPRESENTED BY V.P MCMULLIN & SON SOLICITORS) - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Owens Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment as a Project Manager with the Organisation on the 6th of June, 1996. The Organisation which is based in Convoy, Co. Donegal was established in early 1996 with the backing of the Department of Enterprise and Employment to provide training for local women to upgrade their skills and encourage local community enterprise development.
The terms of the worker's employment provided for a probationary period of three months. Her employment was terminated on the 10th of October, 1996. The employer claims that the worker's employment was terminated because of her failure to carry out and implement the objectives of WEAVE Project. The worker claimed that she had been unfairly dismissed and referred the matter to the Labour Court on the 3rd of April, 1997 under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place in Letterkenny on the 3rd of September, 1997.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker's employment commenced on the 4th of June, 1996. At no time during the course of her probationary period were any reservations raised in relation to her work performance. Accordingly the onus rested with the employer to continue her employment for a further period of 12 months as provided for in her terms of employment.
2. The worker was obliged to work on her own initiative. The Management Committee did not function as a cohesive unit for the first 3 months of her employment and no meetings of the Board took place until two weeks prior to her dismissal. Notwithstanding this, the worker applied herself to the job and had all the necessary ground work done in preparation for the commencement of the Project in October, 1996.
3. The worker fulfilled in full the terms of her employment as set out by WEAVE. At all stages in the course of her employment the worker submitted written monthly reports on her work progress and briefed the Committee on all visits both national and international conducted on its behalf. She was well regarded by all the statutory and voluntary agencies with which she had dealings with on behalf of WEAVE. In the circumstances, the termination of her employment was unjustified.
4. The Union is seeking compensation of 11 months pay on behalf of the worker plus £350 which remains outstanding in respect of expenses incurred on a transnational trip to London and Vienna in September, 1996, and for expenses incurred for local travel in the month of September.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was in breach of her fundamental terms of employment contract, namely to carry out and implement the objectives of WEAVE Project. The Board had no alternative but to terminate her employment.
2. The worker informed the Board that the Project was progressing well. It was during her absence abroad that it was discovered that the Project had fallen seriously behind schedule.
3. The Committee was instructed to revise the Project and warned that funding could be stopped. In the circumstances the Committee's decision to dismiss her during her probationary period was justified.
4. Any claim by the employee for outstanding expenses is denied on the basis that all expenses necessarily incurred in accordance with the financial guidelines of her employment have been paid. Further sums claimed by the employee were not incurred in pursuance of the worker's contract of employment.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having examined all the evidence submitted by the parties, the Court is satisfied that none of the evidence supported the employer's contention that the claimant was fairly dismissed.
The Court notes that the parties to the dispute have agreed to meet locally and agree the amount of documented expenses which are due to the claimant.
The Court further finds that the claimant was unfairly dismissed and recommends that she be paid a sum of £5,000 as compensation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
1st October, 1997______________________
F.B./D.T.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.