FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : SPECTRUM DISTRIBUTION LTD - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Constructive dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker commenced employment as a receptionist with the Company in March, 2003. Seven months into employment the worker was called to a meeting to discuss her position and a complaint that had been received. The worker contends that she felt intimidated and hurt by some of the comments and questions asked at the meeting and that she was advised to go home and think about leaving the job. This was unfair treatment and the worker decided she had no option but to leave under the circumstances.
- The Company reject the claim on the basis that the worker agreed that the complaint received was founded and claimed to find the job boring. They recommended that the worker consider whether the position was the ideal career for her and advised her to decide overnight.
- On the 25th February, 2004, the worker referred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 2nd July, 2004.
The worker agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
- On the 25th February, 2004, the worker referred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 2nd July, 2004.
3. 1. On the day employment commenced, the worker was informed that Company procedure is to hire all staff on a three month trial basis. When the initial three-month period was over the worker was not approached by anybody regarding the trial and six months into employment the worker had still not been informed if the position was permanent.
2. During the employment the worker was praised on several occasions regarding work performed and was told only on one occasion that the work performed was not satisfactory.
3. Seven months into employment was the first time the worker was spoken to about errors made and advised on ways to prevent these.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company did not give the worker any oral, written or other warnings during the period of employment as the position was never under threat and the worker did not merit any warnings.
2. None of the directors were aware that there was a grievance and the worker left on an amicable basis
3. The worker resigned and the Company reluctantly accepted the resignation. The worker was at no time unfairly treated and there was no constructive dismissal.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the written and oral evidence presented to it, the Court is of the view that the claimant found the meeting of 14th October 2003 with the two named Company representatives to be intimidating in nature, and by the end of which she left that meeting feeling her job under threat and that she had been unjustifiably criticised for a number of shortcomings.
While the Court accepts the Company's contention that it did not threaten the claimant with dismissal or advise her to consider leaving, nevertheless it feels that there was an element of constructive dismissal in the claimant's resignation, given the absence of another position being available, and awards her the sum of €1500 in full settlement of the matter.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
20th July, 2004______________________
JO'CDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Joanne O'Connor, Court Secretary.