INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
TECHNOLOGY SALES LEADS LTD
- AND -
Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Mr Doherty
Worker Member: Mr. Somers
1. Alleged mistreatment and unfair dismissal.
2. The worker was employed as a senior business leads provider from 1st March, 2001. He claims that during his period of employment he was subjected to unreasonable pressure. The number of phone calls he was expected to make increased from 60 to over 110. He was constantly berated for taking too long over individual calls and not making enough calls. At the same time he was being complimented on the business generated by this calls and paid a bonus on his output.
At a meeting on the 31st July, 2001 he was told that he was being dismissed because he did not meet the Company's expectations. He was still on probation at the time of dismissal.
The worker referred his claim to the Labour Court on the 9th May, 2003 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 the 30th October, 2003, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
3.1 The worker claims that he was bullied into meeting phone call targets and that no formal training took place.
2. No proper procedures were followed in dismissing the worker, i.e. no verbal or written warnings were given.
3. The worker claims that his dismissal was premeditated.
4. The worker was given "On Time and Target" (OTT) project bonus.
4.1 The worker was employed as a senior telemarketing operator based on experience outlined in his Curriculum Vitae and his interview. Within a number of weeks of employment, the Company had concerns regarding the worker's skill and capacity to perform the duties required of him.
2. Efforts were made by management to facilitate the worker to complete his duties and he was provided with personal attention and training. Despite this, the worker failed to perform to a satisfactory standard.
3. Neither the volume or the quality of his work improved to the Company's satisfaction. His team workers became demoralised. He was being paid the "On Time and Target" bonuses for work that his colleagues had to complete for him.
4. At a meeting 31st July, 2001 the worker was advised that he had not performed to the required level during his review period and the Company had no alternative but to terminate his employment.
The fact that the claimant was within the probationary period provided for in his contract of employment did not relieve the employer of the duty to act fairly in considering the termination of his employment. In that connection the Court notes that the employer did not have a disciplinary procedure in place at the material time. Furthermore, the employer failed to observe the general provisions of the Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures (S.I. 146 of 2000) in addressing the alleged shortcomings in the claimant's performance.
The Court is obligated by Section 42 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990 to take account of the provisions in this code in any case in which they appear relevant. In these circumstances the Court must take the view that the failure of the employer to follow the procedures prescribed by the statutory code of practice rendered the claimant's dismissal unfair.
In the circumstances the Court recommends that the claimant be paid compensation in the amount of €2,500 in full and final settlement of his claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
11th November, 2003______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.