FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : TECHNIFORM WATERFORD LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Compensation.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed as a quality engineer by the Company from the 4th of September, 2001, to the 12th of July, 2002, when, she claims she was unfairly dismissed. The worker's case is that she helped the Company in a number of ways outside of doing her own work. She put in a lot of work to help the Company pass an audit and, thus, help it retain its ISO accreditation. She was appointed as Safety Officer although she told the General Manager that she was not qualified for the job. She was also required to do additional work in production (details supplied to the Court). Towards the end of her employment the worker began to feel stressed due to the amount of work she was required to do . She claims that the General Manager told her that if an employee's performance was not up to standard they could be dismissed after one warning. (The Company denies that this was ever said.) The worker was upset and felt threatened by this.
The worker fell ill on the 12th of June, 2002, and telephoned in sick after 2 days. She visited her doctor who diagnosed her as being stressed. She received a letter from the General Manager on the 20th of June, 2002, requiring her to visit the Company doctor and telling her that her pay had ceased from the 24th of June, 2002. She visited the General Manager on his request on the 5th of July, 2002. He told her that things were not working out for her and that he was terminating her contract. The worker was given the option to resign but she choose not to.
The worker referred her case to the Labour Court on the 12th of June, 2003, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 2nd of October, 2003, in Waterford, the earliest date suitable to the parties. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was required to do far more work than she was hired to do. As a result she had to stay late in work or bring work home with her.
2. The General Manager carried out a performance measurement exercise on the worker in March/April, 2002, and she was told that everything was satisfactory. She was not informed that there were problems with her work.
3. The worker visited the Company doctor who informed management that she was unfit for work. Despite this, she was dismissed for being absent from work.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker's performance was satisfactory for her 6-month probationary period but after that there was a considerable drop in performance.
2.The General Manager had met with the worker on regular occasions between February and June, 2002, to explain that her performance was below standard. She had been told not to get involved in production work.
3.The worker was absent without leave without correct notification on the day she had scheduled a National Standards Authority of Ireland audit. Successful completion of this audit is essential to the Company maintaining its ISO 9002 quality system. Management viewed this as serious misconduct and lost trust and confidence in the worker's ability to carry out her duties in a responsible fashion.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is satisfied that the manner in which the claimant was treated fell far short of the objective standards of fairness that would be expected of a reasonable employer. There was no attempt to assist the claimant to overcome the difficulties which the employer perceived in her performance. The employer did not have a disciplinary procedure in place and failed to observe the basic provisions of the statutory code of practice in dealing with the claimant's shortcomings. The Court considers it particularly unfair for the employer to have required the claimant to attend the meeting at which she was dismissed while she was on sick leave suffering from stress having been so certified by the Company's own doctor.
In all the circumstances of this case, the claimant's dismissal was unfair. The Court recommends that she be paid compensation in the amount of €7,500.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
24th October, 2003______________________
CON/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.