FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : CLONMEL COMPUTER AND TRAINING CENTRE - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was employed by the company as a software trainer from the 17th of November, 1999. She claims that upon her return from holidays on the 8th of August, 2000, her employer issued her with one month's notice.
The worker referred a claim of unfair dismissal to the Labour Court on the 23rd of November, 2000, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. She agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute in Thurles on the 12th of December, 2000.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was dismissed without warning. She had previously requested feedback on her performance and her employer had stated that her work was excellent.
2. When the worker was employed she was told that she would be fully trained before being sent out to companies. However, she did not receive the necessary training to carry out her job.
3. The worker was dismissed because of problems with the computer system of a particular company. The worker had told her employer that she could not sort out the problems but her employer had insisted that she do so.
4. The worker is seeking an apology from her former employer for mistreating her and intimidating her in order to force her to resign rather than to work out her notice. She is also requesting that her former employer withdraw the notice of dismissal.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. When the worker was recruited she seemed to have a good working knowledge of accounts and of a package which is similar to that supplied by the Company. She was brought on site to gain experience and was sent on a four day training course in Dublin. As the worker felt that the training was inadequate, her employer made herself available for any training queries.
2. The Company was unaware of the problems which the worker encountered with upgrading a particular company's computer system. Her employer felt that the job was not difficult and that the worker would have assistance from the company who writes the software. Therefore, her employer told her to go to the company to deal with the upgrade.
3. It was only when the worker went on annual leave that the extent of the problems became clear to the Company. The employer no longer had confidence in the worker to do the job that she was employed to do. The Company, therefore, gave her notice of dismissal.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that the claimant is only seeking that any imputation of wrong doing on her part be withdrawn.
Having regard to the circumstances in which the claimant's employment came to an end, the details of which emerged at the hearing, the Court recommends that the letter of dismissal issued to the claimant be expunged from the company records and that her employment be regarded as having terminated by resignation.
The Company should inform the claimant in writing of its acceptance of this recommendation and on that basis the matter giving rise to this dispute should be considered closed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
9th January, 2001______________________
D.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.