FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : YVONNE R. GILMER & CO SOLICITORS - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Compensation.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed by the respondent for 14 weeks from 2nd August, 2002 until 8th November, 2002. She claims that she was forced out of her employment and compelled to leave, due to the conduct unreasonable behaviour and misrepresentations by the employer.
On 18th March, 2003 the worker brought a case against the employer to a Rights Commissioner under the European Communities (Safeguarding Employees Rights on Transfer of Undertakings (Amendment) Regulations 2000. The Rights Commissioner's decision was"As no transfer of undertakings has taken place there cannot be any breach of the regulations".
The worker then referred her claim to the Labour Court on the 5th June, 2003 in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 23rd October, 2003, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 The worker was compelled to leave her employment by reason of the employers unreasonable conduct towards her, which amounted to harassment and a denial of dignity in the workplace. Being required to work in a discriminatory oppressive work environment constituted a repudiatory breach of the worker's contract of employment.
2. The employer mentioned that the practice was on the market and assured the worker of a minimum of 6 months work, with three months probation. The worker was also assured the that she would be made permanent following satisfactory completion of her probation.
3. The worker was informed that the employer would assist her in securing continued employment with the transfer of the practice. This was not the case.
4. The worker did not received a contract or particulars of employment pursuant to the Terms of the Employment (Information) Act, 1994.
5. The worker did not received a copy of any grievance procedures on bullying and harassment were given to the worker, nor were any outlined to the worker at any stage during her employment.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 The worker was employed in August, 2002 on the understanding that she was being employed to facilitate the sale of the practice, to gain some legal secretarial experience and that the practice could be sold at any time.
2. She was informed that every effort would be made to find alternative employment when the time came and was given the name of two employment agencies that might have been of benefit to her.
3. Personnel difficulties with another employee arose in the office soon after the worker commenced employment (details supplied to the Court). Every effort was made to maintain a good working relationship within the office. Any difficulties were aired at a staff meeting.
4. Staff were aware that the sale was imminent and were actively looking for other employment.
5. The worker announced in October 2002 that she had found alternative employment commencing in November, 2002.
6. The practice was officially sold in September, 2003.
RECOMMENDATION:
The claimant has argued that she was not informed initially that the practice was for sale and that subsequently she was not given the opportunity to meet with or make a good impression with the new owner.
She equally argued that the atmosphere in the practice was such that it became intolerable for her to continue working there and she felt she had no option but to leave. She further claimed that she subsequently discovered that she would have been covered by the transfer of undertakings legislation on transfer of the business, and that had she known this she would not have left.
The employer has argued that she made it clear from the beginning that the business was for sale and that a personality clash had developed between the claimant and another employee in the practice. She further stated that while she had tried to help the claimant, the claimant did not have the requisite experience to be a legal secretary.
The employer accepted that she did not give a contract of employment to the claimant and that she did not reassure her in relation to the transfer of the undertakings obligations.
It is the Court’s view that the claimant in her sense of responsibility and serious approach to her job did not fit into the organisation and that the employer did not give her the necessary support in the circumstances, although it would appear that she was more than helpful in helping the claimant on a personal basis.
The Court cannot find for the claimant in relation to her claim that she was forced to leave her employment. Indeed having expressed a wish to leave she continued in her employment for a further eight days, despite the fact that the atmosphere was as bad as she had indicated. While the Court believes that the employer could have been more helpful and supportive in explaining the ramifications of transfer of undertaking, the Court is satisfied that it was known by all the employees for a long time that the practice was for sale.
In view of the general uncertainty and lack of clarity in the claimant's position, and the failure of the employer to furnish her with details of her employment, thereby causing her unnecessary upset and disturbance, the Court recommends that the employer pay to the claimant the sum of €1,000 in compensation for the distress and disturbance caused.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
17th November, 2003______________________
JB/BRChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.