FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : STATIONERY STORE (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Alleged Unfair Dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a small commercial retail stationers and is located on the Dublin Road, Naas, Co. Kildare. It handles approximately 250 credit accounts. It employs 10 workers.
The worker commenced employment on the 12th August, 1996, as an accounts clerk/book-keeper and was responsible for debtors, creditors, wages and VAT. The worker claims that on the 17th April, 1997, she was called in to the Managing Director's office. He told her that he had information that she had attended an interview for a job outside of the Company and that he was unhappy with the situation. He also informed her that when he heard about the interview he looked for someone to replace her at the Company. Having found someone suitable he was now terminating the worker's employment. The worker claims that she was unfairly dismissed.
The worker referred the case to the Labour Court on the 15th June, 1997, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 1st August, 1997. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The only reason the worker was dismissed was because she had attended an interview with another company. Her employer told her as much on the day that he spoke to her in his office. She had already served 6 months' probation and there were no problems with her work. She did not receive any verbal or written warnings. The worker was unhappy with some of the work practices at the Company (details supplied to the Court) but was told "this is the way we do it". She had no problems with the other people she worked with.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In November, 1996, the Managing Director had cause to talk to the worker about the performance of her duties. He was unhappy with her attitude towards himself and members of staff. She was refusing to do parts of her job and spoke about private Company matters to staff, regardless of their position within the Company. The worker could offer no reasonable explanation for her behaviour and she was formally reprimanded. There was no improvement in her work over the following months. When the Managing Director became aware in February/March 1997 that the worker was applying for jobs elsewhere he sought to recruit a new book-keeper. The Company could not afford to be without a book-keeper and, following her poor work performance, the Company felt fully vindicated in terminating her employment.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered all the information before it, finds that the dismissal of the claimant was unfair.
The Court recommends that the Employer pay the claimant the equivalent of 3 months' salary in compensation and supply her with a suitable reference.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
28th August, 1997______________________
C.O'N./S.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.