Labour Court Database
__________________________________________________________________________________
File Number: CD87857
Case Number: LCR11601
Section / Act: S20(1)
Parties: DUNNES STORES - and - IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION
|
Subject: Dispute concerning the alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
Recommendation: 4. In the light of the submission made by the Union the Court is
satisfied that the worker concerned was unfairly dismissed and
recommends that she be paid compensation to the amount of #150.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________ CD87857 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11601
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: DUNNES STORES
and
IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker commenced part-time employment in the Company on
16th July, 1987 for the summer period. The worker had previously
worked in the Company while on school holidays during Christmas,
1985, summer of 1986 and Christmas 1986. Approximately 7 to 10
days after starting work while on register work the cash was
slightly over and on 31st July, the Register she was working on
was short approximately #200, it later transpired that the
shortfall was around #90. On 7th August, 1987 the worker was
informed by the Staff Manageress that she was being given a weeks
notice for "Incorrect Register Procedure." The Union on behalf of
the worker requested a meeting with the Manager to discuss the
situation, but this was refused and a dispute took place between
the Company and the Union. On 12th October, 1987 the Union
referred the matter to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. However, the Company declined an invitation to a
conciliation conference and on 6th November, 1987 the Union
referred the matter to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969 for investigation and
recommendation. The Union agreed to be bound by the Court's
recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on 8th
December, 1987. The Company did not attend the hearing
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. When employed for the 1987 summer period, the worker
understood that her work would consist of mainly packing
shelves and some relief work on registers. The worker
received no formal training on register operation. She had
previously received approximately one hour's register
training in the 1985 Christmas period and in July, 1987 the
Staff Manageress stood behind her while she dealt with one
customer. No other training was given.
2. When the worker began to make mistakes on the register
management gave the impression that the mistakes were not
serious. On the first occasion when her register was over #3
she was not warned by management. On the second occasion her
register was short approximately #200 but the next register
was over by the same amount and the manager informed the
worker that this was probably due to a mistake in I.O.U's and
the matter could be dealt with. The next day the worker was
informed (by a part-time worker) that the shortfall was
actually #90, this was confirmed by the supervisor. Again
management did not treat the matter seriously and the worker
was not warned. The worker was given no chance to improve
her performance.
3. The worker was not trained properly and was given no
opportunity to improve and normal disciplinary procedures
were not applied. The worker's dismissal was therefore
unjust and unfair.
RECOMMENDATION:
4. In the light of the submission made by the Union the Court is
satisfied that the worker concerned was unfairly dismissed and
recommends that she be paid compensation to the amount of #150.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
___________________________
17th December, 1987 Deputy Chairman.
U.M./J.C.