FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : NYPRO LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY MANUFACTURING, SCIENCE, FINANCE) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures plastic parts for the Telecom, Electronics and Healthcare industries and employs 320 workers. The dispute concerns a worker who commenced employment in the Financial Department as an assistant accountant in June, 2001. The worker was dismissed on the 18th April, 2002. She claimed that she was unfairly dismissed and 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 on the 24th January, 2003.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.The worker, despite her executive position, was asked to provide cover in the reception area, and though initially declining this request, eventually did so because of considerable pressure by Management. While other workers also provided cover, the claimant was the only one at executive level to do so. The worker was informed that she would be dismissed if she refused. Her position in the Company was undermined. The worker protested about the reception cover issue to no avail.
2.The worker instigated a grievance under the Grievance Procedure and some weeks later was called to a meeting and advised she was being dismissed because she was unsuitable. In contrast to this statement the worker was informed she would receive a good reference as the Company had no problem with her work.
3.The worker was a loyal, hard working, and conscientious employee and was devastated by her treatment by the Company. She was harassed and bullied when she attempted to process her grievance.
4.The worker seeks compensation for her loss and injury caused by the unfair treatment and victimisation. Additional compensation is claimed against the Company for failing to abide by the basic norms in employment rights. The worker seeks a positive reference and a reference for her CIMA qualification
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.During her probation a number of issues arose relating the worker's relationships with colleagues and management which were of concern to the Company
2.The Company had to restructure in a major way following a significant loss of business. A number of workers in supervisory roles were re-assigned to direct labour jobs. All departments were affected. The role of second receptionist was made redundant in February, 2002. To maintain cover in the reception area this duty had to be assigned to workers in the Finance Department, including the claimant, for one and a half hour's per day one day per week. She asked to be excused on the grounds that the duties were beneath her. It was explained to the worker that full cooperation is essential regarding flexibility and implementing change. Other staff were very cooperative. The worker sought again to be excused from reception cover. She was advised that refusal to carry out an instruction, regarding reception cover, could lead to dismissal. The worker did so under protest and proceeded to initiate a complaint through the Grievance Procedure.
3.While the grievance was being processed the worker's behaviour was abrupt and disruptive.
4.Management reviewed her position, in particular with reference to her suitability for being made a permanent member of staff in the Financial Department. In light of the numerous issues that had arisen and the ongoing disruption caused, it was decided not to appoint her to the permanent staff. The worker was advised of this at a meeting on the 18th April, 2002. She was given every opportunity to express her opinions. The worker did not request a reference. She was not refused a reference.
5.The worker has been replaced by a fully qualified accountant who is employed under the same terms and conditions of employment and who also carries out reception duties.
6.The worker was dismissed in accordance with the contractual process and during the currency of her probation. She was given reasons for the dismissal and was paid one month's pay in lieu of notice.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given consideration to both the written and oral submissions of the parties. The Court is of the view that while the company could have had valid reasons for terminating the employment of the claimant, the manner in which the termination was conducted was totally unfair. In all the circumstances of this case, the Court recommends that the company should pay the claimant €5,000 compensation in full and final settlement of all claims against the company.
The Court notes that the company will supply, as requested, a reference and details of the claimant's work record for the purposes of attaining her CIMA qualification.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
29th January, 2003______________________
TODDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.