FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : BEAUMONT HOSPITAL - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY COOLOCK COMMUNITY LAW CENTRE) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed by the Hospital as a catering assistant from the 28th of December, 1998 to the 11th of March, 1999, when she claims she was unfairly dismissed. She worked in a job-sharing capacity, one week on, one week off. She was originally employed on a 3 month contract, due to end on the 28th of March, 1999. When she was informed by her manager that the Hospital would not be renewing her contract, she left on the 11th of March.
The worker claims that 2 incidents occurred which left her with no option but to leave the job. On the 26th of February, she was accused by the canteen manager of smoking in the canteen. The worker maintains that she had a mobile 'phone in her hand, not a cigarette, and asked for an apology. She claims that the canteen manager became abusive to her (details supplied to the Court).
The next day, the worker saw the canteen manager and the catering officer talking together and looking over at her. When they had finished talking, the catering officer approached the worker and told her to "get your hair in your hat". The worker replied that her hair was in her hat but was told that her fringe was the problem. (There was disagreement between the parties as to the date of this incident).
Later that evening, the worker approached the canteen manager and again asked for an apology because of what had happened the previous day. The canteen manager refused and the worker said she would go and see the manager of the catering section.
The following morning the worker was 20-30 minutes late and was told to go to the kitchen as she had been replaced in the ward. Around midday, she went to see the manager of the catering section. The manager told her that he had received a few complaints about her, and referred to her late arrival that morning and the incident with her hair. The worker was surprised at this response. She told the manager that she was worried about losing her job but he reassured her that this would not happen.
The following week on her week off, the worker came in to see someone in Personnel to discuss what had happened. On the 7th of March, she had another meeting with the manager. He told her that he had got a different version of events from the canteen manager, as well as reports that she was "cheeky". He then told her that the Hospital would not be renewing her contract but that she was not being dismissed. The worker felt that she had no option but to leave and did so on the 11th of March.
The Hospital's view is that the worker walked out on her contract. She was not dismissed. There were a number of reasons as to why her contract was not renewed.
The worker referred her case to the Labour Court on the 10th of June, 1999, in accordance with Section 20 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 4th of August, 1999.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The worker had no problems in her job until the incident on the 26th of February. She was not smoking but using a mobile 'phone. She felt that she deserved an apology because of the abusive manner in which she was spoken to. The incident happened in front of a number of witnesses and was embarrassing for the worker.
2. The worker had not been asked before to put her fringe in her hat, nor had any other worker.
3. The worker was 20 minutes late because she had not slept well the night before,as a result of the incidents of the previous day.
4. By going to see the manager of the catering section, the worker was following the grievance procedure that exists in the Hospital. She was not trying to cause problems for anyone. She was given no adequate reason for the non-renewal of her contract, which was, in effect, a dismissal. The worker had to fill out 2 exit interviews and 2 termination forms.
HOSPITAL'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The worker's contract was not renewed because of a number of incidents. It was not just because of the incident on the 26th of February. The worker was spoken to about her hair on the 22nd and 24th of February i.e. before she was accused of smoking by the canteen manager.
2. There was a complaint about the worker from one of the ward sisters because of the delph that had not been cleaned. The worker had also taken uncertified sick leave.
3. The canteen manager felt that the worker was not able to take instruction or advice from anybody. He had tried on a number of occasions to help her improve herself in the job but she would not listen. He was not criticising her.
4. The worker was not dismissed. She left the job more than 2 weeks before her contract was finished.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered the written and oral submissions made by the parties, is satisfied that the employer was entitled to make a decision whether or not to offer a new contract to the claimant. The contract she had was clearly for a fixed term of 3 months.
However, the Court is of the view that a major part of this dispute arose as a result of an incident in which the claimant was accused of smoking on the premises.
The Court is satisfied that this accusation was not correct, although it may have been believed by the person making the accusation at the time.
The Court believes that this dispute might have been defused if an apology had been given at the time, and suggests that this be done, even at this late stage.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
20th August, 1999.______________________
CON/BCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.