FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : TRANSFORMATION - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Owens Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a division of the Anglo-Swiss Global Investment Group plc, with head-quarters in Manchester and Zurich. The worker began her employment on the 3rd of October, 1997, and claims that she was unfairly dismissed on the 24th of January, 1998 The worker produced a contract of employment which stated that she was on 3 months' probation. However, after the Court hearing, the Company (which did not attend the hearing) supplied a copy of a contract which had a 6 months' probation and, the Company claims, post-dated the worker's contract.
The worker started her employment as a sales assistant doing 2 days work per week. When the original manageress left, the worker was asked to take her place. She agreed to do so until after Christmas, and worked 4 days per week, 8.45 a.m. - 8.00 p.m. After Christmas, the worker asked if she could go back to her original position as a sales assistant, working 2 days per week, as she found working 4 days was too much. Management agreed to look for a new manageress.
In the middle of January, 1998, the worker became ill and was on sick leave from the 14th - 21st of January. She reported back for work on the 23rd of January and on the 24th of January, the worker was told that she was being dismissed.
The worker referred her case to the Labour Court on the 20th of April, 1998, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 26th of May, 1998. The Company did not attend the hearing, but twice wrote to the Court. It claims that the worker was still in her 6 months' probationary period, that she wished to reduce her working week which was not possible, and that she had a history of arriving late for work.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker did all the duties that were asked of her e.g., banking, petty cash, stock taking, etc. The shop was always open on time despite the fact that the worker lived 40 miles away. Because the Company is English-based, managers were rarely on the premises, which left the worker with most of the responsibilities. She also trained-in the supervisor and was a key-holder.
2. The worker was genuinely sick during the middle of January and supplied a doctor's certificate. She returned to work on the 23rd and 24th of January although not fully recovered. For these 2 days the English manager would not let her do her duties and was rude to her. The manager told the worker that she would have to dismiss her as she felt that her health would not be good enough to work long hours. However, the worker had already asked to go back working for 2 days per week.
3. The worker feels that she was badly treated by the Company and was basically dismissed for something that was not her fault i.e. being sick.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that the Company declined to attend the hearing but did submit a statement of their case and gave a reason for non-attendance. The Court sought additional information from the Company subsequent to the hearing. This information was copied to the claimant for her consideration. The Court wishes to record that it would have been more satisfactory to have had the direct evidence of the employer.
In all the circumstances of the dispute, and noting the relatively short period of employment, the Court has concluded that the claiment was not fairly treated. The Court, accordingly, recommends payment of £1,000 as compensation for the loss of her employment, and distress suffered.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
27th July, 1998______________________
C.O.'N./D.T.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.