INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
- AND -
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)
Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Mr Carberry
Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
2. The worker commenced employment in July, 2000, as "Front Office Manager". The Union claims that there was a verbal agreement between the manager and the worker and that terms and conditions of employment were agreed to. The worker alleges that in July, 2001, her employment was terminated and claims that she was unfairly dismissed.
Management reject that the worker was unfairly dismissed. It claims that the worker failed to reach the standards required by the hotel.
The Union referred the dispute to the Labour Court 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 23rd of October, 2002.
3. 1. The Company did not wish to meet the agreed terms and conditions of employment and resorted to dismiss the worker without cause or reason.
2. There was never any complaints from customers or guests in relation to how the worker performed her duties. She was often complemented by customers and guests for her friendliness, professionalism and helpful nature.
3. The one verbal warning that the worker can recall was in relation to her taking holidays. These were holidays which had been agreed to with her manager.
4. The Company is asked to provide the worker with a reference to exonerate her good name and work record.
4. 1. Complaints were received by management from other members of staff that the worker was unhelpful and unpleasant to deal with.
2. The worker's attitude to customers was found to be unsatisfactory over a period of time, leading to complaints from customers that she was abrupt and discourteous to deal with.
3. Management found the running of the front office unsatisfactory. Incoming calls were diverted to the bar where the worker was sitting drinking coffee.
4. The worker was given several verbal warnings regarding her work performance. As there was no effort made to improve performance, management had no option but to terminate the worker's employment.
In the Court's view the manner in which the claimant was treated by the Company fell short of the standard that would be expected from a reasonable employer.
In all the circumstances of the case, and taking account of all the matters relied upon by the Union, the Court recommends that the employer offer and that the claimant accept a compensatory payment of €3000 in full and final settlement of all claims.
The Court further recommends that the claimant be furnished with an appropriate reference.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
4th November, 2002______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.