FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 20(1); INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT; 1969 PARTIES : CELLULAR WORLD (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY MANDATE) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed by the Company at its outlet in Bloomfield Shopping Centre, Dun Laoghaire as a retail sales executive. She commenced employment on the 13th of November, 2000. Her employment was subject to a six month probationary period.
The Union states that the worker was rostered for Sunday work. She explained to management that she was unable to work on a Sunday. The worker claims that she was subsequently unfairly dismissed.
Management rejects the allegation that the worker was unfairly dismissed. It states that all staff are expected to work on Sunday when rostered. It claims that the worker had worked on Sundays when she first commenced employment.
The Union referred the dispute to the Labour Court 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 30th of January, 2002.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was outside the six month probationary period in which her employment could be terminated without notice.
2. The worker had a right to representation, which the Company refused.
3. The way in which the worker's employment was terminated was in breach of the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures as contained in S.I. No. 146 of 2000.
4. The manner of the worker's dismissal was unfair and she should be compensated accordingly.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker refused to comply with a reasonable request to work on Sundays which was in breach of her contract of employment.
2. Management had no option but to terminate the worker's employment following her refusal to comply with a lawful and reasonable request.
3. In an environment where customer service is of primary concern, her unreliability and insistence on varying the terms of her contract of employment, were not acceptable to the Company.
4. The decision reached by the Company was fair given the employee's record and all that pertained at the time her employment was terminated.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered all of the written and oral submissions made by the parties, finds that the Company was in breach of its own procedures in relation to this dismissal. It is clear that despite the wording on dismissal in her contract of employment, no investigation took place and the employee was not allowed representation.
The Court is also satisfied that the dismissal was in breach of the Code of Practice and Grievance in Disciplinary Procedures as contained in S.I. No. 146 of 2000.
The Court, therefore, recommends that the employer pay the claimant €6,500 compensation, in full and final settlement of her claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
11th February, 2002______________________
LW/CCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.