FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DEERINGS - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGrath Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with Deerings on the 16th of September, 1996 as a delicatessen assistant. Her duties involved assisting the chef in the kitchen. The worker's employment was terminated on the 17th of January, 1997.
The worker claimed that she had been unfairly dismissed and referred the matter to the Labour Court on the 27th of March, 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 on the 8th of September, 1997, the first available date suitable to both parties.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. At no time during the course of her employment did the worker suspect that she was in danger of losing her job. She has 12 years experience in the trade and is highly regarded.
2. The worker was a reliable member of staff. Her attendance was punctual, she was polite to customers and was always available to work overtime.
3. On foot of her duties in the kitchen the worker sought an increase in pay. The worker is concerned that she was dismissed 1 week after she requested an increase.
4. Deerings advertised for staff in the same week the worker was dismissed due to lack of business. The worker was devastated and shocked at her unfair dismissal.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. From the commencement of her employment the worker's performance was unsatisfactory. She did not appear to have the necessary requirements for the position and became unco-operative with other members of staff. This made working relations within the shop difficult.
2. The worker was slovenly in the kitchen. She was spoken to about this situation on numerous occasions but no improvement was forthcoming. This situation was unacceptable working in a food environment where hygiene is of the utmost importance.
3. It was clear from the early stages of her employment that the trust, responsibility and confidence that the Company needed to place in the worker were not going to be met. A company of Deerings nature and size, operating within tight financial constraints needs to have employees working without supervision. The worker was simply not suited to the position for which she claimed she could handle with confidence and in this light dismissal was the only option.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court having considered all of the views raised by the parties in their oral and written submissions finds that in all the circumstances the claimant's dismissal was unfair.
The Court recommends she be paid compensation in the amount of four weeks pay.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
9th October, 1997______________________
F.B./S.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.