INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
- AND -
Chairman: Ms Jenkinson
Employer Member: Mr McHenry
Worker Member: Mr Rorke
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. 750/98.
2. The worker concerned was employed as a part-time Sales Assistant by Tesco, Kilbarrack from the 22nd of November, 1997. She claims she was unfairly dismissed on the 6th of October, 1998. The Company states that her dismissal was justified due to gross misconduct. They allege that :-
(1) the worker failed to scan certain items with the result that the customers were not charged for these items,
(2) she did not use the correct procedure to obtain change and,
(3) she did not correctly account for coupons.
These issues could not be resolved at local level. The Union, on behalf of the worker referred the dispute to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. His recommendation issued on the 15th of February, 1999, as follows:-
"I have studied the evidence very carefully and I have viewed the video mentioned and the Working Rule Agreement. I have come to the conclusion that the claimant was provided with the opportunity to deal with the issues as outlined at the meetings.
While some ambiguity exists regarding her competence and her participation in training programmes for the new tills, her failure to provide satisfactory explanations to the questions raised, left the Company with a serious problem to solve.
On balance I am satisfied that they had to deal with the problem and in the circumstances I believe that the decision to dismiss was not unfair. I therefore, decide that the claim fails."
The Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on the 18th of May, 1999.
3. 1. The worker was not properly trained. She received no training on the old till system and one hour's interrupted training on the new system.
2. The worker answered all questions to the best of her knowledge relating to the alleged incidences.
3. The Union is requesting that the Company accept the worker's resignation with effect from the 6th of October, 1998, and pay her compensation for the unfair manner of her dismissal.
4 1. The worker did receive training and she proved to be knowledgeable and competent in relation to check-out operations.
2. She was fully aware of Company procedures and of the implications should she breach any of these.
3. The worker had been given several opportunities to explain the irregularities but no satisfactory explanation was given.
In this case the Court considered written and oral submissions by both parties and video evidence.
The Court is not satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to enable it to fully support the appeal by the Union.
However, the Court found no evidence to support the claim of breach of the Company's honesty policy and recommends that the Company should consider accepting a letter of resignation from the appellant, as a matter of finalising this matter.
The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation should be amended accordingly.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
3rd June, 1999.______________________
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.