FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : O'KEEFFE'S OF KILKENNY LIMITED TRADING AS PETMANIA - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY MR NEIL REIDY) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Termination of Employment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Worker commenced employment as a Dog Groomer with Petmania on 20th September 2011 and was terminated by email and letter dated 19th April 2012 and paid one week's wages in lieu of notice. During her employment there were a number of complaints from customers regarding the quality of her work, animal mistreatment and inappropriate behaviour. Management responded to these complaints by placing the Worker on paid suspension while investigating the issues. The Worker raised a number of issues regarding her treatment at the hands of Management and is awaiting closure of these matters.
On the 4th July, 2012 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 4th December, 2012.
The Worker agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The number of dogs booked in for grooming often exceeded the number that could reasonably be completed in any one day. This put pressure on the Worker and affected the quality of her work which in turn led to customers complaints.
2. The Worker has been the victim of prolonged and repeated abuse and harassment at the hands of Management. Due to this she has suffered bouts of depression, her health and quality of life has been negatively impacted.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. An Inspector from WSPCA visited the Petmania Store following complaints of animal mistreatment, a cash settlement was granted to a customer as a result.
2. The Worker's probationary period was extended as per Company handbook and not as a punishment but as a means of separation out the issues of suspension and bullying which were at play at the time.
3. It was fair and reasonable for Management to dismiss the Worker as the quality of her work did not reach agreed standards.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Employer accepts that the Claimant’s employment was terminated because of customer dissatisfaction with her performance. However, she was not provided with an opportunity to address the complaints or to but forward any explanation or defence. That contravened the Company’s own disciplinary procedure and the Code of Practice on Disciplinary procedures made under the Industrial Relations Act 1990.
In that regard the Court does not accept that an Employer is relieved of the obligation to observe the normal requirements of procedural fairness in dealing with performance issues involving an Employee on probation.
The Court is satisfied that while adequate grounds may have been present to justify a dismissal it was nonetheless procedurally unfair.
The Court is also satisfied that the Claimant failed to avail of her right to appeal the disputed dismissal and this is a factor to be taken into account in dealing with the appropriate redress.
Having regard to all the circumstances of the case the Court recommends that the Claimant be paid compensation in the amount of €2,500 in full and final settlement of all claims arising from her dismissal.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
9th January, 2013______________________
JFChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.