FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MATTHEW OF CLONES LTD (REPRESENTED BY MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY CITIZEN'S INFORMATION SERVICE) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal of a Recommendation of a Rights Commissioner R-052904-Ir-07/SR.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Worker concerned was employed by the Company as a Senior Shop Assistant following an advertisement for general shop staff in the Northern Standard Newspaper. The Company were very impressed by theWorker at interview and paid her in excess of the rate of pay as the Company believed that she would be an asset to the Company. Her appointment was subject to a 6 months probationary period.
Prior to taking up her position the Worker informed the Company that she was pregnant.
On the 31st January 2007 the Worker informed her employer that she had to attend her Medical Practitioner as a matter of urgency. She returned to work following the appointment. The Worker spoke with her Employer on two separate occasions with regard to her absence and the manner in which he responded to her concerns regarding her pregnancy.
The issue before the Court concerns the dismissal of the Worker from her position during her period of probation.
The claim was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. His recommendation found that the Worker was dismissed in accordance with the terms and conditions of employment as confirmed and accepted by her. However, he did recommend that in order to bring some finality and closure to both parties the'Employer pay to the Claimant the sum of €900 within 6 weeks of the date of the recommendation'
The Worker appealed the Rights Commissioner's recommendation to the Labour Court on the 8th July 2008, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 1st April, 2009.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.The Worker maintains that she took all reasonable steps to inform her Employer of the need and urgency to visit her Medical Practitioner on the morning in question.
2.The Worker rejected categorically that she displayed at any time insufficient commitment, lackof initiative or interest in her work as indicated by her Employer as a contributing factor in his decision to terminate her employment.
3. The Worker maintains that at no time did her employer bring to her attention any concerns in relation to her employment, her work performance and responsibilities.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The Employer maintained that he had no difficulty whatsoever with the fact that the Worker was pregnant.
2. The Employer contends that the Worker did not have the skills and expertise that were suitable for the positionthat the skills she showed were not consistent with those skills which she maintained she had during the course of her interview.
3. The Employer maintained that it had the right to terminate someone's employment during the period of probation. It further maintained that the Worker was clearly unsuitable for the position and the Cmpany exercised its right as per their letter of appointment to terminateher employment.
DECISION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court is not of the view that the Claimant's dismissal was due to her pregnancy, but that there was an incompatibility between herself and her Employer which made her continued employment difficult, particularly in the light of her having been on probation.
The Court considers however, that the summary nature of her dismissal fell short of good Industrial Relations practice and fair procedures. The Court is of the view that, in accordance with the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures (SI No. 146/2000), which should apply even in a probationary period, €1,000 would be an appropriate level of compensation for this and so decides, varying the Rights Commissioner's recommendation accordingly.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
23rd April, 2009______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.