FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ST. OLIVER PLUNKETT PRIMARY SCHOOL (REPRESENTED BY STEEN O'REILLY AND COMPANY) - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker states that she was employed by the school principal from the 15th of October, 1996, to replace the school secretary who had applied for one year's leave of absence. As the worker did not receive a written contract of employment she assumed that she would be employed until the secretary's expected return date of the 15th of November, 1997. The worker claims that she was summarily dismissed by the new school principal on the 25th of June, 1997. She claims that she did not receive any verbal or written warnings and that she was not given an explanation for her dismissal.
The worker referred a claim for unfair dismissal to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. As the school objected to the investigation the worker referred the claim to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. She agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. The Labour Court hearing took place on the 14th of January, 1998.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Board of Management contravened the worker's constitutional right to fair and reasonable procedures. Contrary to the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994, the employer failed to provide a written contract of employment.
2. The Board acted unreasonably by refusing to give a specific reason for the worker's dismissal, failing to follow any formal disciplinary or dismissal procedures, failing to issue any formal warnings and by failing to issue her with improvement notices if her work or behaviour was below expectation.
3. The Board did not afford the worker the right to representation at the time of her dismissal, the right to respond to the alleged causes for her dismissal or the right to appeal the Board's decision. She is seeking compensation for loss of earnings up to the 15th of November, 1997, in the amount of £3,150 in addition to a reference from the Board of Management.
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. As the worker was not experienced as a school secretary she worked with the previous secretary for the first month. She was employed under a weekly non-renewable contract from the 18th of November, 1996. The worker was informed of her duties and that her employment was not permanent.
2. The school principal and vice-principal met with the worker twice in February, 1997, to discuss problems with the worker's performance. Following a Board meeting in March she was again given a list of her duties. The worker was fully aware that her performance was unsatisfactory.
3. The Board of Management was entitled to dismiss the worker in view of her conduct which affected her competence to carry out the work for which she was employed. She was given ample opportunity between February, 1997, and June, 1997, to improve both her work and her attitude, but she failed to do so.
RECOMMENDATION:
On the evidence presented the Court is satisfied that the procedures followed by the school in dealing with the alleged shortcomings of the Claimant were inadequate and fell short of the standards expected of a reasonable employer. In particular the Court believes that the Claimant was not adequately advised of the nature and extent of the allegations against her or that her continued employment was in jeopardy. Moreover, she was not given any fair or reasonable opportunity to make representations in her own defence before the decision to terminate her employment was taken.
Against this background the Board of Management of the school could not have reached a fair and objective conclusion that the Claimant was guilty of serious misconduct such as to justify dismissal. The Court, therefore, finds that the Claimant was unfairly dismissed.
Having regard to all the circumstances of this case the Court recommends that the Claimant be exonerated from any allegations of serious misconduct. It further recommends that she be paid compensation in the amount of £2,500, in addition to payments in lieu of notice already received, in full and final settlement of all claims against the school.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
27th January, 1998______________________
D.G./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.