FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 2015 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES: SMARTBOX GROUP LTD AND A WORKER DIVISION:
Complaint under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969.
The Worker referred this case to the Labour Court on 14 November 2023 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 on 26 January 2024. RECOMMENDATION: The Employer informed the Court that they would not be attending and did not provide a submission. The Worker commenced employment with this employer on the 9th January 2023 as a Production Manager, and resigned from her position giving a months’ notice which expired on 3rd October 2023. The Worker stated that at her initial performance review meeting in May 2023 she received very positive feedback and was informed that she had successfully completed her probationary period. Two weeks later she was informed that her probation had been extended because of feedback received from a survey of other staff about her performance carried out by her line manager. The Worker was not provided with copies of the survey, or the responses received. The Worker was informed that there would be three further reviews, the first of which occurred in July 2023. Again, a survey was issued to other staff about her performance, and she was not given a copy of the survey issued, told who it was issued to, or given access to the feedback received. In early September the Worker felt that despite making all the changes requested of her, that her efforts were not being acknowledged by her manager, and that the manager was moving towards dismissing her, so she handed in her notice, The Worker also raised as an issue, the fact that when she handed in her notice she was not allowed work her notice period, and had to clear her desk, and leave the office on the same day. However, she confirmed to the Court that she was paid a month’s salary in lieu of notice. Discussion and Recommendation. It is clear from the Worker’s own submission that she resigned her position. However, the failure to provide the Worker with all the information the Employer had gathered through their survey process, which they were relying on to inform their decision about her future, with the company was a flaw in the probation review process and could not be described as a fair procedure. The Court recommends that the Employer pay the Worker compensation of one month’s salary. The Court so Recommends.
NOTE Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Therese Hickey, Court Secretary. |
