FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : LIFFEY VALLEY FITNESS - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Alleged Unfair Dismissal
BACKGROUND:
2. The claim before the Court concerns an alleged unfair dismissal. The worker began her employment in October 2006 as a part-time Receptionist with the company. The worker was on a thirteen week probationary period with the company. After a number of weeks the worker was asked to take the position on a full-time basis which she did. According to the worker, this was an indication that the job was going well. Management submitted that there were a number of issues during the thirteen week probation. These concerned lateness, absence and mistakes. The worker contended that any absences were covered by doctors certificates and that mistakes were to do with an initial lack of training.
The worker referred her claim to the Labour Court on the 9th Januay 2007, 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 1st June, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 Management and the company's owners had indicated to the worker that they were happy with her work. The worker started as a part-time employee but was made full-time.
2 The worker had no contract and was underpaid for the first five weeks. No training was provided for doing end of night drops.
3 The worker believes she was coerced into voluntarily resigning when in fact the company was dismissing her. The worker later requested a retraction of her resignation. It was while on certified sick leave that the company dismissed the worker.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The worker made many mistakes in her position as Receptionist. There was a problem with end of night drops, the worker did not stick to uniform guidelines and there was complaints from members of the club about her customer service.
2 On numerous occasions the worker was late for work and on one occasion did not show.
3 The worker was given a contract by the company to be signed and returned. She did not do so.
RECOMMENDATION:
The claim before the Court concerns the alleged unfair dismissal of the worker. Having considered the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court is of the view that there were a number of difficulties with the worker's performance and attendance which gave rise to the termination of the worker's employment.
The Court is satisfied that on balance the procedures adopted by the Company in this instance, were appropriate in the circumstances, and accordingly, the Court does not uphold the claimant's contention that she was unfairly dismissed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
21st June,2007______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.