FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : GALA STORES - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal Against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-037659-05/GF.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Claimant was employed by the Company as a Store Manager in Castlebar, Co. Mayo from the 18th July, 2005, until termination of his employment on the 5th August, 2005, amounting to a total of three weeks employment. The Claimant was approached by the Company, whilst employed elsewhere, and offered a Managerial position in Gala Stores. The Claimant had previously worked for the Company. The Claimant's employment was terminated as a result of dissatisfaction on the part of the Employer in relation to his work performance.
- The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union, on behalf of the Claimant, for wrongful dismissal from his job. The Union's position is that three weeks in situ was insufficient time for an assessment of his abilities and if the Company had issues with him they should have formally made him aware of these and given him the opportunity to improve.
The Company's position is that the Claimant had previously worked for two years with the Company and that he was experienced enough to carry out his duties. The Company further contends that the Claimant was dishonest in his dealings with Management and that this was unacceptable.
The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and Recommendation. The Employer did not attend the Rights Commissioner's hearing.
His findings and Recommendation issued as follows:- “In the unexplained absence of the previous employer I feel the claimant has made a compelling case. He is a credible witness in my opinion and I feel he should succeed in this case. I request his former employer to pay him the outstanding losses of €11,600 forthwith.”
- On the 28th March, 2006, the Employer appealed the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, on the basis that he had not received notification of the Rights Commissioner's hearing and was therefore unable to attend. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 7th June, 2006.
- On the 28th March, 2006, the Employer appealed the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, on the basis that he had not received notification of the Rights Commissioner's hearing and was therefore unable to attend. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 7th June, 2006.
3. 1. The Claimant came to the job with two years previous experience. It was not considered necessary to train him in the position. The Company had no problems with him during his previous employment.
2. The business suffered as a result of lack of stock in the Store. When the Claimant was approached in relation to this issue, he was dishonest in his replies. Newspaper returns were not completed within the time-frame allowed for returns and therefore the store would not be compensated for unsold newspapers. He was absent from work when rostered to work on one occasion and left work on another occasion to do a personal errand while the store was busy.
3. The Claimant was dishonest and lacked respect for management.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Claimant did nothing to justify his dismissal. There had been a previous good working relationship between the two parties. In relation to the Claimant's duties, stock ordering was carried out as per his instruction from his superiors, which was to keep stock tight. Newspaper returns would have been completed as required had the Claimant been given the opportunity to settle into the job. Shift rostering was part of the Claimant's job as manager and he covered this in a responsible fashion. On a particular day, knowing he would be unable to attend work, he ensured that another person was rostered to cover this.
2. The Company had previously employed the Claimant and was satisfied that he was competent and capable. If they had issues with him on this occasion, they should have formally made him aware of these and given him the opportunity to improve.
3. The treatment meted on the Claimant was grossly unfair, first luring him away from another employment and then dismissing him without justification.
DECISION:
The Employer in this case failed to attend the hearing before the Rights Commissioner for reasons which were explained to the Court. The Court has had an opportunity to hear from both parties in relation to the events and circumstances in which the Claimant's employment terminated.
Having carefully considered the submissions made, the Court is satisfied that the Claimant was harshly treated by the Employer. He was induced to leave another employment in the reasonable expectation that he was taking up a permanent managerial position. He was not provided with a fair opportunity to address any concerns which the Employer may have had in relation to his performance over a very short period. The Court has no doubt that the manner of his dismissal fell far short of the standards which would normally be expected of a reasonable employer and was unfair.
In the circumstances the Court can see no reason to interfere with the Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner, including the amount of compensation awarded. The Recommendation is affirmed and the appeal is disallowed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
14th_June, 2006______________________
JO'CChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Joanne O'Connor, Court Secretary.