Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87274 Case Number: AD8743 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: F. HANNA LTD - and - MR. V. TAYLOR |
Appeal, by a worker, against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. C.W. 1/87, concerning unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
I recommend that the Company offers the sum of #200 to the
worker and that he accepts it in full and final settlement of
any claim regarding his employment and its termination. I
feel that the Company should also provide an appropriate
reference to the worker.
(The worker was mentioned by name in the recommendation).
The worker appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation, to
the Labour Court, under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. A Court hearing took place on 8th May, 1987.
Worker's arguments:
4. (i) The worker believes that if he had proved so
unsatisfactory as claimed, then the Company would not
have kept him on for the busiest time of the year. If
he was incompetent the Company would not have kept him
on until Christmas.
(ii) It was convenient for the Company to dismiss the
worker when they did. A large proportion of the
students had bought their books by this time of the
year. The Company as a result did not have to pay the
worker over the period when the shop was closed at
Christmas. Part-time staff, who were due to go in
December, were kept on. To suggest that part-time
workers were better than the workers concerned, who
was full-time, is outrageous.
(iii) The shop stayed open till 9 p.m. Monday to Wednesday,
but the worker did not work those nights. These late
nights were not compulsory and the worker opted out of
them. This could not be any reason for
dissatisfaction with the worker.
Company's arguments:
5. (a) At the end of the worker's trial period, during which
he required constant monitoring and correction, which
caused problems for his manager and colleagues, he was
advised that the trial period was being extended. He
was further advised, on 17th October, 1986, that a
significant improvement in his performance was
required. When this failed to materialise the Company
decided to terminate his employment.
(b) During the course of his employment with the Company,
the worker continually made mistakes of a very basic
nature, was uncooperative, unwilling to learn and was
apathetic in his dealings with customers. (Details
supplied to the Court). The Company submits that the
worker had every opportunity to demonstrate his
aptitude for the job. The worker was under no
illusion as to the dissatisfaction of management and
colleagues with his performance.
DECISION:
6. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, finds no grounds for altering the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation, which it upholds. The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87274 THE LABOUR COURT AD4387
Section 13(9) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
APPEAL DECISION NO. 43 OF 1987
PARTIES: FRED HANNA LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
A WORKER
Subject:
1. Appeal, by a worker, against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. C.W. 1/87, concerning unfair dismissal.
Background:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment on 12th May, 1986,
on a six month trial period. On 17th October, 1986, the worker
received an increase in pay. When he queried the manager about
the pay rise, he was informed that it was due to the start of term
and consequently a busier period. The manager also told the
worker that he was dissatisfied with his work, but no guidance was
given as to what the reasons for dissatisfaction were. The worker
concerned stated that he was not particularly aware, at this
stage, that his continued employment was at risk.
3. On 21st November, 1986, he received 4 weeks notice of
dismissal. The worker denied that he had been warned about his
performance at any stage. The Company maintained that the worker
was employed on a three month trial basis, which was extended due
to his unsatisfactory performance. The worker referred the matter
to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. On 24th February,
1987, the Rights Commissioner issued the following findings and
recommendation -
Findings
As there was no letter of appointment I am in some confusion
as to whether the worker was on a 3 or 6 month probationary
period. I accept that the worker may have been reprimanded
about his performance but there is doubt as to whether he
understood the warnings explicitly, and there was no system
of logging or recording the specific instances. It seems
coincidentally unfortunate that the meeting at which the
Company claimed to have extended the worker's probation was a
meeting initiated by the worker himself. I believe that the
Company may have believed the worker was unsuited to a
permanent position but at the same time the dismissal was
treated in a manner insensitive to him.
Recommendation
I recommend that the Company offers the sum of #200 to the
worker and that he accepts it in full and final settlement of
any claim regarding his employment and its termination. I
feel that the Company should also provide an appropriate
reference to the worker.
(The worker was mentioned by name in the recommendation).
The worker appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation, to
the Labour Court, under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. A Court hearing took place on 8th May, 1987.
Worker's arguments:
4. (i) The worker believes that if he had proved so
unsatisfactory as claimed, then the Company would not
have kept him on for the busiest time of the year. If
he was incompetent the Company would not have kept him
on until Christmas.
(ii) It was convenient for the Company to dismiss the
worker when they did. A large proportion of the
students had bought their books by this time of the
year. The Company as a result did not have to pay the
worker over the period when the shop was closed at
Christmas. Part-time staff, who were due to go in
December, were kept on. To suggest that part-time
workers were better than the workers concerned, who
was full-time, is outrageous.
(iii) The shop stayed open till 9 p.m. Monday to Wednesday,
but the worker did not work those nights. These late
nights were not compulsory and the worker opted out of
them. This could not be any reason for
dissatisfaction with the worker.
Company's arguments:
5. (a) At the end of the worker's trial period, during which
he required constant monitoring and correction, which
caused problems for his manager and colleagues, he was
advised that the trial period was being extended. He
was further advised, on 17th October, 1986, that a
significant improvement in his performance was
required. When this failed to materialise the Company
decided to terminate his employment.
(b) During the course of his employment with the Company,
the worker continually made mistakes of a very basic
nature, was uncooperative, unwilling to learn and was
apathetic in his dealings with customers. (Details
supplied to the Court). The Company submits that the
worker had every opportunity to demonstrate his
aptitude for the job. The worker was under no
illusion as to the dissatisfaction of management and
colleagues with his performance.
DECISION:
6. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, finds no grounds for altering the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation, which it upholds. The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
26th May, 1987 Nicholas Fitzgerald
B.O'N./P.W. Deputy Chairman