FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : BANK OF SCOTLAND (IRELAND) LIMITED - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-051622-IR-07/JT
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker joined the Bank from the ESB on 12th December, 2005, as part of a negotiated agreement. She commenced training in March, 2006, and joined the Dun Laoghaire Branch in May, 2006. She moved to the Bank's Tallaght Branch in July, 2006. On the 9th August, 2006, a customer at the Tallaght Branch made a complaint by e.mail to the customer service centre in Dundalk about the worker's "abrupt attitude" (details of the incident were supplied to the Court). As a result the worker was informed that her interactions with customers would be observed by the Branch Manager on a weekly rather than a monthly basis. The Bank claims that at a meeting on the 25th August, 2006, the worker was observed behaving in an unfriendly manner with two customers. (The worker was on sick leave for two weeks from 29th August, 2007, for which she was not paid.) Following an investigation by the Bank the worker's employment was terminated. The worker appealed the decision and a further investigation took place but the decision to dismiss her was upheld. The worker denies that she did not reach the standards of customer service required by the Bank.
A second issue involves payment of a bonus. As part of the "Framework Agreement" between the ESB and the Bank in 2005, ESB Staff were to receive the equivalent of the bonus they received in 2004 as an alternative to the Bank bonus for 2006. In the worker's case this was €11,197. Initially the Bank refused to pay the bonus as the worker was dismissed but, it claims, agreed to pay her €8,397 (75% of her bonus) as a gesture of goodwill in full and final settlement of all issues. The worker denies that she signed any document accepting these terms.
The case was referred to a Rights Commissioner and his recommendation was as follows:
" I have considered the submissions and arguments put forward by both parties. The bank operates in a very competitive market in the financial services industry and customer loyalty is highly prized. There seemed to be a reluctance on behalf of the claimant to accept that the customer is right even when they are wrong.
In evaluating the events in this case the claimant denied she received the original e-mail complaint made against her. The respondent stated that she was given a copy of the e-mail. Having examined the procedures by the respondent in dealing with the claimant I am satisfied that she did receive a copy of the e-mail. I also examined the terms of the bonus payment and the respondents would be well within their right not to pay the bonus. However, they did, even though it was paid inadvertently.
This claim is being heard under the Industrial Relations Act 1969-2001. I do not find the claims well founded therefore they fall".
The worker appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 29th February, 2008, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 1st May, 2008.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Bank's claim that the worker was supplied with a copy of the e.mail from the 9th August, 2007, is untrue. She did not see the e.mail until the Rights Commissioner's hearing on the 15th October, 2007.
2. The worker refutes the allegations made by the Branch Manager in relation to the two incidents in August, 2007. She was not discourteous to customers at any stage. On both occasions the customers did not have the correct documentation with them.She felt bullied and harassed by her Manager.
3. The €8,397 received by the worker was not a "goodwill" gesture and she would not have taken it as such. It was money earned by her.
BANK'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The customer on the 9th August, 2007, complained about the worker's attitude and said that it had "turned her off" doing business with the Bank in future. On the 25th August, 2007, the worker was observed dealing in an unfriendly and dismissive manner with two customers. Following an investigation the Bank felt that the worker was not suited to the role of customer adviser.
2. The Bank refutes any allegations of bullying and harassment by the worker's manager. In fact, the worker's attitude toward the manager on both occasions in August, 2007, was unprofessional.
DECISION:
Having considered the positions of both parties as expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court is of the view that the disciplinary procedures adopted in this case did not comply with the Company’s own policy on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures and consequently the dismissal was procedurally unfair.
The Court is of the view that the appellant should have been paid two weeks' sick pay when she was absent from 29th August, 2006. Furthermore, the Court is of the view that she should have been given one month’s notice instead of one week.
Consequently, the Court recommends that the claimant should be compensated by the payment of €10,000 in full and final settlement of the claims before the Court. For the avoidance of any doubt, the Court’s award of compensation takes account of the payments referred to above.
Accordingly, the Rights Commissioner’s recommendation is overturned.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
15th May, 2008______________________
CONDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.