FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : GRAHAM O'SULLIVAN LIMITED - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY COOLOCK COMMUNITY LAW CENTRE) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Owens Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker commenced employment as a deputy supervisor on the 21st of July, 1997, in one of the Company's restaurants at Artaine Castle. She earned £200 gross for working a 40 hour week. She was dismissed on the 6th of November, 1997. The reason given for the worker's dismissal was that she was responsible for a missing cash lodgement. The worker was one of 4 people who looked after lodgements and had access to the safe. The lodgement is normally put in a bag and then placed in the safe at the end of each day. Prior to this, the lodgement may be placed in a press underneath the till while the floats are being sorted out. On the 29th of October, the worker was on duty and went through the usual procedures for dealing with the cash. She believes that the lodgement was placed in the safe as usual. On the 5th of November, the worker was informed that the lodgement for the 29th of October was missing. Later in the day, the lodgement was found in the press underneath the till. At this stage, nobody was blamed for the incident.
On the 6th of November, the worker was informed that two of the managers wished to speak to her. A five minute interview took place in full view of the rest of the staff. The worker was blamed for the missing lodgement and was dismissed without notice.
The worker believes that she was unfairly dismissed and referred her case to the Labour Court on 18th of June, 1998, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 27th of July, 1998. The Company did not attend the hearing but, in a letter to the Court, stated that the worker had left her employment during her probationary period having worked with the Company for less than 6 months.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was on 3 months' probation which she had completed on the 21st of October. It is not clear that the worker was responsible for the lodgement being misplaced. No investigation was carried out. It was assumed that the worker was responsible although a number of other people were involved in the lodgement procedure. If the lodgement bag had been accidentally left in the press overnight, it should have been noticed the following morning by the cashier. The bag is large and could not be overlooked. The missing lodgement should have been noticed when making up the weekly total. The worker believes that she did place the lodgement in the safe on the evening of the 29th of October.
2. If the worker was responsible for misplacing the lodgement, the Company's decision to immediately dismiss her was unfair. The worker was not guilty of gross misconduct. In the Company's staff handbook, neglect or mistakes are not reasons for dismissal. There is no question of the worker being guilty of theft. She had an excellent record.
3. The Company did not follow its own procedures even if the worker was guilty of gross misconduct. The handbook states that, in such a case, a full and through investigation will take place. No investigation took place in this instance. The worker was given no opportunity to defend herself. Two of the people who conducted the interview could have been involved in misplacing the lodgement. The worker had been promoted to assistant manager immediately prior to her dismissal. The worker was extremely upset by the incident and the way it was handled by the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that the Company declined the Court's invitation to attend the hearing.
In the circumstances as outlined by the appellant, and in the absence of any evidence from the Company, the Court has concluded that the manner in which the appellant was treated was most unfair and contravened the tenets of natural justice.
The Court finds that she was unfairly dismissed and awards her £1,500 compensation for the distress she endured. The Court noted the claimants evidence that she had in fact been promoted by the Company to assistant manger immediately prior to her dismissal. She should be supplied with a reference detailing her satisfactory performance during her period of employment which had resulted in her promotion prior to her termination.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
6th August, 1998______________________
C.O'N./D.T.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.