FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MICHAEL GUINEYS (REPRESENTED BY REDDY CHARLTON MCKNIGHT, SOLICITORS) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Constructive dismissal of a worker after telling employer she was pregnant.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company as a Sales Assistant in October, 1999. The worker claims she was constructively dismissed on the 28th January, 2000. The Company rejected the claim. The worker claimed that her dismissal was unfair and on the 10th May, 2000 referred a 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 in Waterford on the 22nd September, 2000.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Between October, 1999 and January, 2000 the worker concerned was happy in the Company and had received no complaints about her work or performance. In January, 2000 a new manager started and asked the claimant to work at the front of the shop which opens onto the street. This area was unheated, with doors constantly open and was an unpleasant area in which to work. The worker was pregnant and felt unwell. She requested to work in a different part of the shop, explaining her situation.
2. The following day the worker was called into the office and in the presence of her immediate supervisor, was berated for her attitude, behaviour to customers and general laziness. The worker was taken aback and very upset as she had no idea that management had this perception of her. The worker was asked to sign a 'letter' which appeared to detail the Company's complaints. The worker asked for time to read it, was refused and told 'just sign it'. The worker who was in a very emotional state signed the letter under duress. She was refused a copy of the letter.
3. During the dates of 26th, 27th and 28th of January, the worker received very offhand treatment from her Manager and the Managing Director who was intimidating and abusive to the worker. She did not return to the employment.
4. The worker was treated in a most unfair and unjust manner. She had not received any warnings about her performance prior to January. The Company did not adopt the recognised procedures in dealing with the worker, if it found that her performance was poor. The Union contends that the Company took the opportunity of her pregnancy to create a situation, whereby the worker had no alternative but to leave the employment. The worker is seeking appropriate redress.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company denies firstly that the claimant was dismissed at all and secondly that she was dismissed on the basis of her pregnancy.
2. The worker was a member of staff for just over three months. During that time she frequently showed poor aptitude and seemed disinterested in her duties at the store. The worker was verbally reprimanded informally on the shop floor on a number of occasions for failure to fulfil the terms of her employment on time and in a manner acceptable to management.
3. On the 25th January, 2000 the worker received her first formal verbal warning for poor standard of work and for showing a lack of co-operation to management, staff and customers as per the terms of her employment. The following day the Managing Director of the Company felt it necessary to reprimand the worker on the basis of the information that he had received regarding the worker's failure to adequately fulfil the terms of her employment and her failure to show respect to her Manager during the warning process. On the same day, the claimant failed to return to work after lunch.
4. At no time was the claimant dismissed and the Company categorically denies that she was the recipient of unjust treatment specifically due to her pregnancy, or at all. On the contrary she was afforded special leniency, allowed several days off for hospital visits and scans. On no occasions were the requests for days off refused and she was allowed a day off during stock take, which is highly unusual. With regard to the reprimands, her manager was unaware of the claimant's pregnancy when the first of these took place.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given consideration to the written and oral presentation of both parties.
While the details outlined were often a matter of disagreement between those involved, the Court is of the view that the pregnancy of the worker was not a factor in her treatment by the Company.
However, the procedures adopted by the Company in dealing with disciplinary matters did not accord with standard disciplinary procedures and the accepted Code of Practice on Disciplinary Procedures made under Section 42 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990 (S.I. No 117 of 1996) which sets out the procedural stages, which an employer should follow in dealing with matters of discipline. This resulted in the worker's decision not to return to work.
In the circumstances the Court considers that the worker was treated unfairly. Having regard to the employer's failure to observe certain procedures in this case, the Court recommends that the worker should be paid a lump sum of £500 in full and final settlement of this claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
5 October, 2000______________________
TOD/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.