FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : O'CONNOR PYNE & COMPANY - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company, based in Ballincollig, Co. Cork, is an accountancy firm providing accountancy, audit, tax and advisory services. The claimant ( herein referred to as 'the worker') commenced employment with the firm in February 2004, having applied for a part-qualified accountant role. The workers employment was terminated in July 2004. The dispute before the Court relates to a claim by the worker for unfair dismissal and acknowledgement of unfair treatment and compensation for same is sought. The Company reject the claim.
- On the 2nd of September, 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 13th October, 2004.
- The worker agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker explained at interview that she applied for the position within the Company to help improve her accountancy skills, as she had received inadequate training in a previous job. Assurance was given by the Company that a high level of on the job training would be given. This was not the case.
2. The worker accepted the position, with a drop in salary from her previous job, on the understanding that the position was a permanent one and that on the job training would be given and a period of two weeks study leave was granted to complete her final accountancy exams. At no time during the interviews for the position was a probationary period mentioned. The worker contends that she would not have given up her previous job for a position that may last only six months.
3. When informed that her work was not satisfactory the worker made every effort to improve her performances. No further training or guidance was given and the worker assumed that the situation had improved.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was employed on the basis that she had achieved a wide knowledge of accountancy in her previous position and all but the final accountancy exams had been completed. All fair procedures were followed in bringing to the workers attention the fact that the job held was at risk some weeks before dismissal due to ongoing basic accounting errors on the workers part and the lack of improvement following efforts by the Company to show the worker how to complete various accountancy functions.
2. At final interview stage the worker was informed that the contract of employment would be subject to a six month probationary period. This is the Company's standard policy and applies to all employees.
3. The workers grievance against the Company does not relate to the issue of termination of employment but rather the workers dissatisfaction with the amount of termination payments, statutory and holiday entitlements.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the submissions of both sides concerning the alleged unfair dismissal of the worker.
The Court is of the view that the procedures adopted by management in this case were not exercised reasonably. It takes the view that the employer failed to adequately warn the employee that her employment was in jeopardy and to afford her appropriate representational rights.
Therefore, in full and final settlement, the Court recommends that the claimant should be paid the sum of €5500 compensation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
18th November, 2004______________________
JO'C/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Joanne O'Connor, Court Secretary.