FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : TIBBET AND BRITTEN GROUP (IRELAND) LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY EVANS AND COMPANY, 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 concerned commenced employment with the Company as an Administrative Manager at its Clondalkin site on the 23rd of November, 1998. She was dismissed on the 24th of March, 1999. The worker claimed that she was unfairly dismissed and sought to refer the issue to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. The Company objected to such a referral. On the 12th of May, 1999, the worker referred the complaint to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the 23rd of July, 1999.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. At the beginning of February, 1999 a new general manager was appointed and in early February and mid-March, 1999 two incidents occurred (details supplied to the Court), whereby the worker, while carrying out her normal duties in a competent, efficient manner was subjected to unwarranted, unfair criticism and aggressive treatment by the general manager. The worker protested to him about this unfair treatment.
2. On the 24th of March, 1999, the worker was summoned to the general manager's office and in the presence of the operations manager was informed that she was being dismissed. The worker was given no option of having representation as provided for under the terms of the Company's Disciplinary Procedure.
3. The worker had left a permanent position to take up employment with the Tibbet and Britten Group. She previously held a number of similar positions with other companies and had left them on good terms with excellent references.
4. The worker had a good employment record and interacted will with work colleagues. Management did not express dissatisfaction with either her work or her attitude. She was dismissed from the employment in an arbitrary and unfair manner and contrary to the Company's own procedures. The worker seeks appropriate redress together with a suitable reference which is acceptable to future employers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker concerned was not unfairly dismissed. She was employed under a contract of employment dated the 23rd of November, 1998, Clause 3 of which specifically provides for a probationary period of six months from the date of commencement of the employment, during which the contract may be terminated by either party in accordance with the terms of the Employment (Information) Act, 1994. The Company was entitled by law to terminate the contract as the claimant had specifically accepted the employment on this condition by signing the contract.
2. The worker was dismissed because she was unsuitable for the position of Administrative Manager. Her attitude to senior management and her performance was not acceptable (details supplied to the Court). The worker was warned in relation to her attitude and performance and was given every opportunity to perform to a satisfactory level but did not do so.
3. The worker was afforded her rights under the terms and conditions under which she was employed i.e. under the disciplinary, grievance and summary dismissal procedures. In the circumstances the worker's dismissal was fair. She was treated in a reasonable manner and was paid her statutory entitlements.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions of the parties in this case.
The Court is fully satisfied that the conduct alleged against the claimant could not be categorised as gross misconduct as that term is normally understood or as defined in the Company's own procedures. As a matter of basic fairness the Court considers that the Company should now withdraw any such imputation against the claimant.
The Court is also satisfied that the manner in which the claimant's employment was terminated fell far short of the objective standards of fairness which could be expected of a reasonable employer. The claimant was not provided with any meaningful opportunity to respond to the complaints of management before being dismissed. Moreover, the Company totally disregarded its own disciplinary procedure and the terms of the Code of Practice on Disciplinary Procedures (S.I. No. 177 of 1996) made under Section 42 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
The Court finds that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. It recommends that she be paid compensation in the amount of £5,000. It also recommends that she be provided with a credible reference.
This dispute was referred to the Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, following the Company's refusal to attend a Rights Commissioner's investigation However, the Court notes that the Company/Staff Grievance procedure, which the Company accepts was incorporated into the claimant's contract of employment, provides that the outcome of a Court investigation will be binding on both parties.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
6th August, 1999______________________
T.O'D./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.