FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MUINTIR SKIBBEREEN CREDIT UNION LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. Muintir Skibbereen Credit Union was founded in 1966 and has a membership of approximately 11,000. It is located in Skibbereen, with a sub-office in Schull, Co. Cork. It employs five full-time and three part-time staff who cover both the Skibbereen and Schull offices.
The worker concerned commenced employment with the Credit Union as a clerical officer on the 15th of August, 1997. She declined to sign a contract of employment due to her concern regarding security in relation to procedures for making bank lodgements. Her employment was on a permanent part-time basis and was subject to a probationary period of three months.
The worker's employment was terminated on the 4th of August, 1998. Management argues that the worker was unable or unwilling to take up the position of clerical assistant to operate the Credit Union sub-office in Schull. The worker claimed that she was unfairly dismissed and referred the matter to the Labour Court on the 15th of September, 1998 under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place in Cork on the 3rd of March, 1999. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker's probationary period was completed on the 15th of October, 1997. She was not advised that her probation period had been extended and she received no complaints from management regarding her job performance.
2. On a number of occasions, the worker and the Union sought the security report in respect of the Schull office. It was not made available to the Union until the 16th of October, 1998. It is reasonable to expect that the report would have been made available for discussion prior to the worker's dismissal.
3. The worker's dismissal is clearly an abuse of the Unfair Dismissals Act. It is unacceptable that a worker who raises a grievance in respect of health and safety should be dismissed as a consequence.
4. There is no question concerning the worker's performance of work. Her work colleagues and the manager of the Credit Union have testified that she is an exemplary worker.
5. The worker was unfairly treated. In the circumstances the Union is requesting that the Court finds in the her favour and awards the maximum compensation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Credit Union advertised for a permanent part-time clerical assistant to operate the Schull sub-office. At the end of the initial probationary period, it was clear to the Board that the worker had not made the progress necessary to enable her to take over the running of the sub-office in Schull. It was decided to extend her probationary period for a further three months.
2. In October, 1997 management decided to increase the working week to 32 hours to afford the worker the opportunity of additional training. Throughout the training period the worker was kept informed of the standards and duties required from her to successfully fill the post.
3. At the end of the second probationary period, despite further training, the worker objected to taking over the duties in the Schull sub-office on the basis that:-
(a) She was not adequately trained.
(b) She had fears about taking lodgements to the bank.
(c) She was not prepared to work with voluntary tellers.
4. The Credit Union's entire operation was inspected by An Garda Siochana and Health and Safety experts. The worker continued to express the reservations previously mentioned despite the Credit Union being advised that it had an excellent security system in place.
5. Verbal warnings were given to the worker. She was advised that in the circumstances her employment could not be continued, nor could she be offered a permanent position as initially advertised. Despite the warnings she was unwilling to accept the duties expected of her.
6. The worker's employment was terminated on the 4th of August, 1998. She was unable to fill the post for which she was hired. Throughout the entire process management considers that the worker was treated fairly and given every opportunity to attain the standard required.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions made by the parties.
It is clear that while the claimant was not happy with the security arrangements for transferring money, the employer was satisfied that the arrangements were satisfactory, based on expert advice. It is less clear given this major problem, why the employer continued to procrastinate on making a decision on her employment.
Although this problem appears to have been there from the beginning of the employment, the management stated at the hearing that this was not a feature in their decision to dismiss. The decision was based on ongoing concerns about her performance in the past.
It would appear that these concerns were not conveyed to the employee although the employer states that they were addressed by the Board regularly. It is also not clear that the employee was informed of the continuing extension of her probation or that she was given an explanation for the many extensions.
The employer has a detailed grievance procedure but failed to implement this procedure.
The Court having considered all aspects of this case finds that the manner of the dismissal was unfair and that the employer should pay the claimant £500 in compensation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
22nd March, 1999______________________
F.B./D.T.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.