FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : HUGHES BLAKE - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Worker commenced employment as a book-keeper with the Company in August 2007. On several occasions the Worker informed the Company of her concerns about an ever-increasing workload and suggested how the situation could best be handled. The Company's assigned another member of staff to work with the Worker but this was unsatisfactory for several reasons.
In January 2007, the Worker was told that her probation had been unsussessful and that her employment would cease at the end of the month. The Company refused the Union's request for a meeting to discuss the Worker's situation.On the 29th February, 2008, the Worker referred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Worker agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 29th May, 2008.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Worker, who resigned from a permanent, full-time position to work for the Company, was never afforded the opportunity to carry out her duties, and her efforts to ensure that the work assigned to her was being carried out correctly and efficiently resulted in a campaign to discredit and undermine her.
2. The Worker was excluded from an office Christmas outing; heard negative comments made about her country of origin by one of the Company's partners; and her colleagues were canvessed in an attempt to support untrue accusations made againt her.
3.The Worker is entitled to compensation in recognition of her unacceptable treatment by the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There were difficulties with the Worker's efficiency and her interaction with other staff members.
2. When the Company became aware that, in the course of conversations with recruitment agencies, the Worker was criticizing the Company and indicating a wish to leave, it felt that the Worker's actions were a fundamental breach of her duties.
3.The Company decided that, as the Worker was spending her work day seeking another job, her probationary period would not be extended.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is clear to the Court that the employee's probationary period was not being extended by the Firm due to an alleged 'fundamental breach of her duties in relation to her employment'. The Court was advised that the alleged breach of her duties referred to some negative personal comments about the firm made openly in the main office to other employees, coupled with a complaint of abuse of the Firm's contractual hours by the carrying out of personal business. The employee strenuously rebutted these complaints.
The termination of employment lacked any proper process or procedure and departed from the Firm's own terms and conditions of employment issued through a booklet to the employee on the commencement of her employment. There is an onus in law placed on the employer to ensure that a termination of employment is processed in a fair, considerate and reasonable manner.
The Court considers that the termination of employment proceeded without the exercise of appropriate procedures and diligence. The Court recommends compensation to the employee of €9,000.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
11 th June, 2008.______________________
JMcC.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.