Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Store Manager

A Store Owner

Representatives

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Acts

CA-00017643-001

24/02/2018

This case concerns the alleged Unfair Dismissal of a store manager by a store owner of a store in Dublin city centre.

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent as a store manager on 9th August 2017. Her employment was ended on 12th September 2017. She was paid a gross monthly salary of €2,000. A complaint was lodged with the WRC on 24th February 2018.

The Respondent stated that she had a store in Cork and decided to open another in Dublin. It is a family run business and there are no formal processes in place. The Complainant was recruited as a store manager and the Respondent had hoped she would be able run the Dublin store with minimal supervision.

The Respondent stated that she had had a talk with the Complainant on 5th September 2017 and gave her feedback on her work. Some of the feedback was complimentary, some not so, particularly in relation to the Complainant's customer service, which the Respondent felt was not what it should be. She also told the Complainant that when a customer came into the store she should stop using the store laptop and attend to the customer.

The Respondent stated that between 6th and 9th September she saw the Complainant (on CCTV) ignoring customers again; she felt the Complainant was ignoring the feedback she had been given.   In general, the Respondent felt the Complainant was nowhere near the manager level that she, the Complainant, had said she was.

On 12th September the Respondent met with the Complainant and told her that things were not working out and that she would have to let her go. The Respondent paid the Complainant two weeks' pay as a notice payment.

In closing, the Respondent stated that this store provides her livelihood and she was reliant on the store manager in Dublin representing the brand well; the Complainant had not fulfilled her role. She did not think when she let the complainant go that it would take her so long to find another job and this was upsetting.

The Complainant submitted that after she started in the Respondent's shop on 9th of August 2017 she was not offered any training or asked if she needed anything whilst in her role. During a conversation of 5th September, the Respondent told the Complainant that she was very happy with some aspects of her work but mentioned a concern she had about how the Complainant had handled an attempted sale of a specific item. The Respondent told the Complainant that she, the Complainant, was a little reserved when it came to pushing sales on customers.

On 12th September, the Respondent spoke to the Complainant and told her that it "wasn't working with me and that she was going to have to let me go."   The Complainant was told that her customer service did not match that which they wanted.

In direct evidence the Complainant stated that she had 10 years managerial experience when she took this job and had never had any problems with her employers previously. She acknowledged she could have handled the sale of the item referred to above better but that this was a once off. Regarding criticism that she stayed on the shop laptop when customers were in the shop she stated that this was only because she was on her own in the shop, had to prepare labels etc. and that in her experience customers prefer a little time to themselves after coming into a shop.

In closing, the Complainant stated that she did not feel her performance was below par, that at the very least she should have been given another chance and that the decision to dismiss was very harsh. Her dismissal had caused her a great deal of stress and strain, that she had always put in 100% and she had been left with no income when she was dismissed.

The Complainant did find work elsewhere with similar terms and conditions on 22nd January 2018.

The claim of Unfair Dismissal here is under the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 as it cannot come under the Unfair Dismissal Act, 1977 due to the short service of the Complainant.

However, this does not mean that the guiding legal principles of Natural Justice do not apply.

A landmark case is Frizelle v New Ross Credit Union Ltd, [1997] IEHC where Flood J. stated that

The actual decision, as to whether a dismissal should follow, should be a decision proportionate to the gravity of the complaint, and of the gravity and effect of dismissal on the employee.

Put very simply, principles of natural justice must be unequivocally applied.”

 Furthermore, legal instrument SI 146 of 2000 – Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary procedures (declaration Order) 2000 Industrial Relations Act, 2000 applies. This S.I. essentially codifies the Rules of Natural Justice.

In this case, the rules of Natural justice were not applied in any manner or means. There was no investigation into the matter. The Complainant was dismissed without warning, she was not given an opportunity to defend her position and was not afforded the right of representation. There was no right of appeal.   The sanction of dismissal was totally disproportionate and it does not seem any other sanction was considered.

On a legal basis and put simply, not having twelve months’ service and being on probation, does not mean that all employment rights based in Natural Justice go “out the window” so to speak.

Having reviewed and considered all the evidence both written and oral I came to the view that this was an Unfair Dismissal.

I make a Recommendation, under the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, that the Complainant be awarded Compensation of € 8,000, four months' salary, for the Unfair Dismissal.

Unfair dismissal,