FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MOYNEHALL CAR SALES - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Compensation.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker, originally form England, having been employed with the Company for two months claims that the employment was terminated due to her accent. She states that the proprietor informed her that he could not understand her and that was why he let her go. The worker referred her claim to the Labour Court on the 2nd October, 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 5th February, 2004.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 The worker claims that at the interview process her accent, though known, was not a problem.
2. The worker was asked initially by the head of Accounts to slow down while talking, as customers were finding it difficult to understand her. The worker claims that she herself did not receive any complaints from customers due to her accent.
2. The worker claims that the proprietor informed her that she was good at her work, good on the computer and good with the customers. It was not her fault, but her accent that he could not understand. This was the reason he was letting her go.
3. The worker informed the Court that the reason she did not acknowledge some customers right away was the position of the computer on the reception desk, it blocked the visibility of the main door. She mentioned that the Company did reposition the computer for her.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 The terms of worker's contract stated that she was on a six month probation period and that her employment may be brought to an end at any time during this period.
2. The worker was spoken to on three occasions regarding problems with her work, 16th or 17th April, 2003, week of 5th May, 2003, week of 12th May 2003. The issues discussed were of importance to the Company, these involved tasks that were fundamental to the role of a receptionist, such as:
- Failure to forward telephone messages to colleagues and inaccuracies in the content of messages.
- Problems with communication on the telephone and the worker's manner in which she spoke to customers.
- Failure to acknowledge customers when they arrived at the reception desk.
3. The Company claims that the worker was absent on a number of occasions (approximately six days) during the two months probation.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the written and oral submissions of the parties. Having examined the evidence, the Court is satisfied that on those occasions when the employer spoke to the worker concerning her shortcomings, efforts were made by her to rectify the situation and to improve her performance. At no time was she informed that her job was in jeopardy. The Court is of the view that the worker should have been given an extension of time to prove her ability to do the job to the employer's satisfaction.
In all the circumstances of this case, the Court recommends that the sum of €2200 should be made in full and final settlement of all claims against the Company.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
16th February, 2004______________________
JB/Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.