FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : FIT DISTRIBUTION GROUP LIMITED - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Alleged Unfair Dismissal
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the worker and FIT Distribution Group Limited concerning alleged unfair dismissal. The worker claims to have been dismissed for gross misconduct on the alleged report of a "mystery shopper" who was said to have visited the claimants place of work and been served in an unsatisfactory manner.
The Company representative claimed that the worker was dismissed on the basis that the manner in which the Mystery Shopper was served was not in line with Company policy and was, therefore, gross misconduct .
On 20th March 2008, the worker referred the matter to the Labour Court 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 25th April, 2008.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 There was no opportunity to discuss or defend the contents of the Mystery Shopper's report. Management dismissed the worker unfairly and without following correct procedures.
2Since the dismissal, the worker has been unable to obtain new employment on the basis of the circumstances surrounding the termination of his previous employment. This has caused the worker both financial and personal difficulties.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 All staff were informed that a Mystery Shopper would be visiting the Company's retail outlets and that it was essential for future viability to ensure that all staff acted with the utmost professionalism. The worker in this case did not follow Company policy.
2 The contents of the report were explained to the worker and the reasons for the dismissal. It was clearly outlined that the worker's performance was unacceptable.
RECOMMENDATION:
In all the circumstances, the Court is satisfied that the manner in which theClaimant was treated fell far short of the standards which would be expected from a reasonable employer. It is clear that the Company decided to terminate the Claimant's employment on the grounds of gross misconduct without affording him any opportunity to address the complaints upon which that decision was based. This was grossly unfair and contravened the Statutory Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures (S.I. 146 of 2000).
The Court is satisifed that the decision was unfair on both procedural and substantive grounds.
The Court recommends that the Company pay the Claimant compensation in the amount of €5,500 in respect of loss of earnings and for the distress which he suffered in consequence of the dismissal.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
16th May 2008______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.