FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MCLAUGHLIN COMPONENTS LIMITED - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal, harassment and intimidation.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a small independent contract manufacturer of automotive components, located at Ballyshannon, Co Donegal. The dispute concerns one worker who commenced work with the Company on the 21st April, 2000 as a Machine Operator on weekend shift, on a probationary period of six months. On the 23rd August, 1999, the Company extended the worker's probation for a further six months for reasons, the company claims, concerned with the worker's general performance and attitude. The worker claims the decision to extend her probation arose due, inter alia, to her reluctance to work overtime at a time she was enduring domestic difficulties and following a complaint by her that her wages were less than she was due. The worker wrote to her employer declining to work overtime, an act the Company deemed to amount to a withdrawal of co-operation by the worker. The employer felt he had no alternative but to terminate the worker's employment, during the course of a telephone conversation, on the 21st October, 1999. The worker referred the matter to the Labour Court, on the 29th June, 2000, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court carried out its investigation into the matter, in Letterkenny, on the 12th October, 2000.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The employer at no time complained about the worker's performance or attitude. However, following her complaint that was being left short in her wages, and a subsequent request for an increase, the employer threatened her with the sack should she complain about money again.
2. The worker refused to do overtime only because her probation was extended without any good reason.
3. The employer treated the worker unfairly in a range of ways (details supplied to the Court) and she has endured considerable psychological distress. Her employment prospects are now greatly limited in the locality and she has suffered low esteem and loss of confidence.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. With the benefit of hindsight it is now abundantly clear that the worker was not at all suitable for employment with the Company. During the course of her employment she was obsessive in relation to working maximum hours and coming forward with other suggestions with regard to work arrangements, which would optimise her working hours and earnings. Whilst in many instances this might be regarded as an admirable quality, to be reflected in any employee, her employer came to the view that her persistence in the matter and her general demeanour and approach to her employment rendered this to be ultimately unhealthy and counterproductive to the Company's interest.
2. The Company had justifiable grounds to extend the worker's probationary period and did so by letter of confirmation which she found objectionable. Thereafter, and during the currency of the probationary period, the employer, on behalf of the Company, chose to terminate that employment on the grounds that the worker's overall unsuitability for consideration as a permanent member of staff and he was entitled to act accordingly.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is concerned that major problems appear to have arisen only after the claimant discovered that she was being paid less than her correct rate of pay, and after she raised a number of safety concerns.
No evidence was produced to indicate that her work performance had been less than satisfactory, and the main management criticism was that she was obsessive in her wish to work all the hours she could get from the Company.
It is clear that the working arrangement was difficult, but no evidence was presented to show that she had been properly counselled or advised as to her perceived behaviour. The procedures adopted by the Company did not comply with standard disciplinary procedures and accepted code of practice on disciplinary procedures as set out in Section 42 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990 (S.I. No. 117 of 1996).
The employee, for her part, did withdraw her consent to work overtime, contrary to her contract. However, the Court finds that the way that this was dealt with by the employer in dismissing her over the phone was unfair.
The Court finds the procedures surrounding the dismissal to be unfair and recommends that the employee be paid £250 in compensation and that she be supplied with a satisfactory reference.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
27th October, 2000______________________
MK/MKChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.