AD995

FULL RECOMMENDATION CD/98/556 APPEAL DECISIONNO.AD995 (549/98) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : T. M. BLINDS LTD - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr Rorke

SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR549/98 GF.


BACKGROUND:

2. The worker commenced employment with the Company in July, 1997, on a four month fixed term contract. She was subsequently offered a further six month contract from January, 1998 to June, 1998.

The Company claims that during this period the subject of her work performance was raised with the worker on several occasions. Management indicated that if there was no improvement in all aspects of her work that the Company would not continue to employ her. The worker was subsequently dismissed.

The worker rejects the Company's allegations and claims that she performed her duties at all times to the best of her abilities. The decision by the Company to dismiss her was unfair.

The worker referred the dispute to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. The Rights Commissioner's hearing took place on the 5th of October, 1998. The following is the Rights Commissioner's recommendation:-

"The General Manager said he had made his decision not to offer the claimant a new contract based on the reports of the supervisor. He was satisfied that they were fair and accurate assessments of the claimant's performance. In the absence of any firm evidence regarding the supervisor's report, I find the dismissal is not unfair."

The worker appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 15th of November, 1998, in accordance with Section 13 (9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 21st of January, 1999.


WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:

3.1. The worker claims that her work performance was more than adequate and the decision to dismiss her was unfair.


3.2. The worker performed all the duties she was trained to do to the best of her abilities.

3.3. The worker was rarely absent from work and always obliged when requested to work overtime whenever possible.

3.4. The worker did not receive a written warning concerning her work performance.


COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:

4.1. The worker was employed on a fixed term contract.

4.2. The worker did not attain the standard of performance required by the Company.

4.3. The worker was spoken to on several occasions concerning her work performance.

4.4. Management had no alternative but to terminate the employment of the worker following her trial period.

DECISION:

The Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the parties in this appeal.

It is noted that the claimant's contract of employment required the Company to provide a written warning in the event of unsatisfactory performance. The contract further provided that dismissal can result from failure to adequately respond to such a warning.

While the claimant was told verbally that her performance was unsatisfactory no written warning was issued.

Due to the Company's failure to comply with its own procedures in that regard the Court considers that the Company should pay the claimant compensation in the amount of £300 in full and final settlement of all claims.

The Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is varied accordingly.



Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Kevin Duffy
28th January, 1999.______________________
LW/BCDeputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.