FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : SYMANTEC (REPRESENTED BY A & L GOODBODY, SOLICITORS) - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed on the 25th of August, 1997, as a general operator. Her work involved packing software. The Company claims that the worker's contract was temporary and ran from the 25th of August, 1997 to the 3rd of October, 1997. Shortly before her first contract expired, the worker was issued with a second contract, up to the 2nd of January 1998. The worker maintains that she did not receive a contract for either period of work.
On the 31st of December, 1997, the worker was told by her acting supervisor that she would not be issued with a further contract. The worker feels that she was unfairly dismissed. She claims that reasons given for her dismissal were that she did not do enough overtime and that her production levels were not up to standard. She was only given these reasons after her dismissal.
The worker referred her case to the Labour Court on the 23rd of March, 1998, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 29th of May, 1998.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was given no contract or letter of appointment. All she received was a telephone call on a Friday to ask her to start work on the following Monday. She was given no reason why her contract was not being renewed.
2. The worker did overtime on a number of occasions, approximately 50% of the time. A senior leadhand in the Company told her that overtime was not expected of employees on the midnight to 8.00 a.m. shift (the worker's shift).
3. The worker was not told at any time that her production levels were not high enough. Her work was always completed before the end of each shift. Before Christmas she worked 12 hour shifts, 7 days per week for 2 weeks.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company often hires temporary employees in order to meet extra demand towards the end of each quarter. This is what happened in the worker's case. At the end of the quarter, temporary employees' contracts are terminated when the employee is no longer required. The worker was hired for a second quarter but was not required for a third one. When told that she would not be having her contract renewed, the worker replied that "she was not surprised". She did not return to work her final shift on the 1st of January, 1998.
2. The Company genuinely believed it had given the worker a contract of employment. Her performance in work was not particularly good. She refused to do overtime on a number of occasions although she was told at her job interview that she would be required to do overtime. Given the varying production deadlines which the Company has to meet, it is crucial that all employees co-operate in doing overtime.
3. The worker admitted to the production manager in December, 1997, that she was finding it difficult to keep up with the pace of the work. Given that employees work in teams, this had a direct impact on productivity. The worker often wandered away from her work station during her shift. She was spoken to about these various problems but her performance did not improve. She could have had no real expectation that her contract would be renewed.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is clear from the submissions of the parties that the decision of the Company not to renew the worker's contract was influenced by the alleged shortcomings in her work performance which were detailed to the Court.
It is equally clear that the worker was not provided with any real or adequate opportunity to address those alleged shortcomings, or to make representations in her defence before the decision not to continue her employment was taken.
In all the circumstances, the Court is satisfied that the worker was treated unfairly. It recommends that she be paid four weeks' pay, in addition to any other award or entitlement, and that she be furnished with an adequate reference.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
19th June, 1998______________________
C.O'N./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.