INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
EURO NOW LIMITED T/A ESPRIT
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
- AND -
Chairman: Ms Jenkinson
Employer Member: Mr Keogh
Worker Member: Mr O'Neill
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
2. The worker was employed as a sales assistant from the 20th of May, 1999 to the 2nd of July, 1999. The Company claims that the worker's contract of employment specified a four-month period of probation. Her hours of work were from 10.00 a.m. to 6.30 p.m. based on a thirty-seven and a half hour working week.
The Company claims that, after a few weeks working, a pattern of lateness was noted in the worker's attendance record. Also, on a number of occasions the worker rang in sick with no satisfactory explanation as to her absence. The worker was spoken to by management regarding her time keeping and her attitude to her work. However, no improvement was forthcoming and the Company had no option but to terminate the worker's employment.
The worker claims that she explained why she had been late on the few occasions and that this was accepted by management. She states that she always performed her duties to the best of her abilities and claims that the reason her employment was terminated was because she did not "fit in". The worker referred the dispute to the Labour Court on the 23rd of August, 1999 under Section 20 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on the 26th of October, 1999.
3. 1. The worker was happy and content in her job and was disappointed when her employment was terminated.
2. The worker claims that she was unfairly dismissed. She had a contract of employment and should have been allowed to complete that contract.
3. The only reason the worker's employment was terminated was because she did not "fit in".
4. The worker always performed her duties to the best of her abilities. Furthermore, she often worked late when requested by management to do so.
4. 1. It is the Company's policy that all staff are subject to the completion of a satisfactory probationary period.
2. The worker was dismissed because she did not reach the standard required by the Company.
3. The Company rejects the claim that the worker was unfairly dismissed.
4. The reasons for the termination of the worker's employment were her continued lateness, her unwillingness to carry out her designated tasks and her inability to work as part of the sales team.
Having heard all the submissions of both parties the Court is of the view that the decision to terminate the employment was procedurally incorrect. The bad attendance record of the claimant was one of the main reasons for the dismissal. It was not disputed that the attendance record of the claimant improved when she was given a warning.
The Court recommends that the claimant should be paid £250 compensation in full and final settlement of this claim. A job reference should be supplied by the Company if requested.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
3rd November, 1999______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.