FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : H. SAMUEL (SIGNET PLC) - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker commenced employment with the Company on a temporary contract basis from the 29th of September, 1998 and was dismissed on the 30th of October, 1998.
The worker claims that she was unfairly dismissed. She states that she was not given either a written or verbal warning concerning her work performance.
The Company rejects the claim that the worker was unfairly dismissed. It states that following a period of training it became clear to management that the worker's performance was not up to the standard required by the Company. The worker was on probation and was dismissed because she was found to be unsuitable.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the worker under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on the 4th of March, 1999.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker always performed her duties to the best of her abilities and was surprised at the manner of her dismissal.
2. The worker received no written or verbal warnings concerning her work performance and claims that she has been unfairly dismissed.
3. On one occasion the worker had to work long hours without any payment of overtime.
4. The worker was happy and contented in her job while working for the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company had no alternative but to terminate the worker's employment because she was found to be unsuitable for the job.
2. The Company rejects the claim that the worker was unfairly dismissed.
3. Following initial difficulties with the claimant, the Company held a further refresher course in the standards expected of sales assistants.
4. The worker was employed on a temporary contract of employment and was dismissed in accordance with the terms of that contract.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is of the view that the procedures used in the termination of employment of the claimant were flawed and not in accordance with good industrial relations practice. Therefore, the Court recommends that the claimant should be compensated, the Company must pay her a sum of £500 plus her outstanding overtime for the period worked on Wednesday 21st October 1998 (from 6pm - 11.45pm). The sum of £500 is to include her outstanding notice, holiday and public holiday entitlements.
The Court points out that a serious lack of procedures exists in this Company for employees on temporary contracts and also for those on probation. This situation needs to be rectified immediately, management should seek professional advice and should formulate formal disciplinary and grievance procedures which should be given to all employees in accordance with the legislation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
15th March, 1999______________________
L.W./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.