FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : SUPERQUINN - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Policies and Procedures not adhered to or followed, no Union Representation given, Unfair Dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Complainant commenced working as a Duty Manager with Superquinn at their supermarket branch in Blanchardstown Village on 10th December, 2007, and was dismissed during her probationary period on 12th February, 2008. It was her first experience of working in the retail trade after spending 25 years in the hospitality industry. She found that having to supervise approximately 50 staff very onerous as she found it difficult to remember all of their names. To overcome this problem the Complainant decided to use 'Word Association' as a method to help her link names and faces, the documentation relating to this mechanism was discovered next to a check-out and was read by staff members. Some staff members were offended by the labels next to their names and reported their disquiet and upset to Management which resulted in the Complainant issuing a verbal apology to each staff member concerned. This did not satisfy everybody and a written complaint was furnished to Management, this when taken in conjunction with other unrelated complaints from customers which led Management to the decision to terminate her employment. The Complainant contends that the dismissal was unfair and proper procedures not adhered to.
On the 9th June, 2008 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 27th August, 2008.
- The Worker agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
3. 1. From the very beginning the Worker had to work on her own initiative due to the lack of a training induction programme, she did however receive praise for the condition of the check-outs and the professional way she handled customers.
2. When the Worker's management report was found and read by staff, she quickly apologised for the hurt/offence caused. When notified about customers complaints regarding her conduct and behaviour she did all in her power to correct the situation.
3. Policies and procedures were not adhered to or followed by the Company and she was never given the opportunity to be represented by a Union representative at any of the meetings.
4. At no point prior to her dismissal was the Worker made aware that her job was injeopardy.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Complainant was afforded the full protection of her rights as outlined in Statutory Instrument No.146 of 2000. The Company in it's dispute resolution policy statement further enforces these guidelines.
2. The Worker declined the offer of Union representationat meetings with Management, preferring to have a colleague act as a witness to the events. Her employment was terminated during her probationary period due to unacceptable conduct in relation to customers and colleagues.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is satisfied that a fundamental breakdown in trust between the Claimant and the Company led to the termination of her employment. However, having considered the submissions of both parties the Court is not satisfied that she was aware that her employment was in jeopardy before the date of dismissal, nor was she afforded an adequate opportunity to be represented at the disciplinary hearing on 12th February 2008 when the decision to terminate her employment was made. Therefore, the Court finds that the dismissal was not carried out in accordance with Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures S.I. No 146 of 2000.
In all the circumstances of this case, the Court recommends that the Claimant be paid compensation in the amount of €2,500.00.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
4th September, 2008______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.