LCR16031

FULL RECOMMENDATION CD/98/285 RECOMMENDATIONNO.LCR16031 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : GARDNER MERCHANT (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr Rorke

SUBJECT:
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.



BACKGROUND:

2. The Company is involved in the contract catering business. The worker concerned commenced employment as a catering assistant on the 17th of February, 1998. She was located at the Company's operation in the Dublin Mails Centre, Kileen Road. Her employment was terminated on the 10th of April, 1998. The worker claimed that she had been unfairly dismissed and referred the matter to the Labour Court on the 29th of May, 1998 under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Company's position is that the worker failed to perform to Company standards and that her dismissal was fair.

A Labour Court hearing took place on the 19th of November, 1998. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.


WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. The worker is concerned that her good reputation has been tarnished by her dismissal.

2. The worker was accused by a colleague of stealing two easter eggs. She was deeply offended by the accusation and when she sought an explanation her colleague became abusive.

3. During her employment the worker acted in a courteous and civil manner to the staff of 'Gardner Merchant' and to the staff of 'An Post'. She received no complaints from management in relation to her work performance.


4. The worker was not responsible for the incident which led to her dismissal. She is hurt that her colleague's behaviour has gone unpunished while she has been unjustly and unfairly dismissed.



COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. The worker's employment was subject to a probationary period of 40 days. During the period of her employment she was given two verbal warnings.

2. The worker failed to perform to Company standards, she displayed tendencies towards poor time keeping, a disruptive nature, and a lack of loyalty to the Company. She was afforded every opportunity to succeed in her role and in the circumstances her dismissal was fair.




RECOMMENDATION:

The claimant was concerned that her character had been tarnished and her honesty called into question by the manner of the termination of her employment.

The Court is satisfied that there is no question mark against her honesty based on this case. An intended jocose remark between employees gave rise to difficulties in the changing room on the night in question.

Because of these difficulties and based on the information before it, the Company decided to terminate her employment, as the claimant was within her probationary period.

Management at no stage in the hearing questioned the claimant's honesty or integrity.

The Court recommends that the claimant accepts this position as meeting her requirement in taking this case.



Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Finbarr Flood
4th December, 1998______________________
F.B./D.T.Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.