We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
A WOMAN HAS been awarded €8,000 in compensation after losing her job as a store manager after just one month.
The woman in question had been employed as a store manager for a Dublin outlet of a small chain of shops. At the time, she had 10 years experience in the industry.
After just 34 days in her new employment, she was told by her boss that things “weren’t working out” and that she would have to be let go immediately.
At the time she was being paid a gross monthly sum of €2,000.
On 5 September 2017, just 27 days into the woman’s role, she was given feedback by her boss. The business is a family-run one, and the woman’s boss had hoped that she would be able to run the Dublin outlet with minimal supervision.
At that meeting, the woman was given feedback, both positive and negative. The negative feedback related to the woman’s performance with regard to customer service.
She was told that when a customer entered she should stop using the store laptop and immediately tend to the customer.
‘Ignoring customers’
After that meeting, the woman’s boss said that she had observed her employee repeatedly ignoring customers again via CCTV footage.
She felt that the woman had misrepresented her abilities as a manager.
Having let the woman go, the store owner paid her two weeks’ salary as a notice payment.
The woman subsequently took her case to the Workplace Relations Commission, claiming that the store’s actions towards her “very harsh”. She said that in 10 years of working in the industry she had never had any problems with other employers.
She said her dismissal had caused her “a great deal of stress and strain”. Responding to the suggestion that she was “a little reserved” when it came to pushing sales on customers, she said she stayed on the store laptop when customers arrived because she was on her own in the shop and had to prepare labels, and that in her experience “customers prefer a little time to themselves after coming into a shop”.
She said that at the very least she should be given another chance.
Adjudicating officer Roger McGrath, in considering the submissions of both parties, said that it was clear that the laws of natural justice had not applied.
He said that having considered the evidence he had concluded that the case was one of unfair dismissal.
He ordered the shop to pay the dismissed woman €8,000, or four months’ salary, in compensation.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Nothing more annoying than a pushy store assistant.
@Jayo Breathneach: me too, can’t stand it!
@Gerard J. Hannan: your name pops up again bird turdy from limerick gazette nob
@Gerard J. Hannan: limerick gazette
The cross’s dresser gerry each
@Gerard J. Hannan: In store pushiness is not a phenomena I am familiar with, in fact my experience in present day 21st century Ireland is almost zero service, little or no product knowledge and a total lack of interest except for, . . ”do you want a bag”.
The law says you must have 12 months continuous service before you are entitled to claim unfair dismissal (exceptions for discrimination etc.). So how was this employee able to bring a claim for unfair dismissal if she was only employed for one month?
@John Horan: yes john i agree, how can this woman take this case if the law states you must be in employment for 1 year. ???
@Breda Claffey: perhaps the initial contract did not explicitly outline the probationary period?
@James Brady: probationary period is irrelevant…in fact probation has no legal status. If it had an employer could just make a probation period unlimited.
@John Horan: probation does have legal status but it cannot last more than a year. If I’m not mistaken if she was given a fixed term contract with no probation period then she could sue for wrongful dismissal due to the breaking of that contract through no fault of her own
@John Horan: they didn’t follow procedure. 1or 2 verbal warnings followed by 2 written as far as I know.
Unjust compo if you ask me.
@John Horan: There are procedures and you can’t just go around firing employees at a whim; especially for such weak reasons. Employers have a responsibility to train employees, and warnings should have been issued.
The employer sounds irrational and should have his business named here.
@John Horan: I checked this and the case was taken under the industrial relations act. Only recommendations are possible under that Act as that legislation is about fostering good workplace relations. These recomendations are not legally enforceable unlike other WRC decisions.
@John Horan: The rules of ‘Natural Justice’ always prevail
@orl: Thanks for your clear and legally precise answer. So dies that mean the compensation awatrd cannot be enforced?
@Dave O Keeffe: probation has no legal status. You can be let go after your probation but within 1 year and it is not unfair dismissal. Additionally you do not legally have to have probation in a contract. So say you had 3 months probation and you are dismissed after 11 months then passing probation is irrelevant in a legal context. Therefore rendering it legally pointless as a contract provision.
@John Horan: yeah, it’s only a recommendation of a settlement, not legally binding. It’s a disastrous system for dealing with cases of bullying and misconduct, keeps as much as possible off the public record and means regardless of how badly you’re treated and your contract broken by your employer, you will likely walk away empty handed unless you have the means to bring them to court or the time to fight them tooth and nail
@*The* Brendan Gordon: Thanks…not sure which is worse…going to a non legally binding court case…or The Journal not pointing that fact out. So basically the employee will get nothing. I am still surprised though that you can even bring a case for unfair dismissal (except discrimination etc) when the law states you need 12 months service. So why even waste the courts WRC time and if the employer tries to enforce it surely it will be kicked out of court as she did not have 12 months service? The employer won’t even bother defending it?
@John Horan: you’re spouting some shite there, on every level. WRC decisions are binding, but like every unpaid bill, it requires a court order to enforce collection.
Watching an employee who has not done something to warrant surveillance is against the law.
@Dave Walsh: No. Secretly surveilling them is illegal. Watching footage when they have been advised of CCTV is OK
@Dave Walsh: it’s 100% legal, and it’s actually delivered in the recent data protection act. Why do you think it’s illegal to have cctv in a shop?
@James Brady: I’ve worked in stores where you were not allowed to monitor staff through CCTV. CCTV was for shoplifting/security purposes only. The union would’ve had a field day if they heard that a manager watched the cameras.
If CCTV is used for staff monitoring like on tills then the staff need to be made away of it. The purpose of the CCTV needs to be made aware to staff like staff monitoring, shoplifting, overall security of a building and on entry/exit of buildings.If it’s just for shoplifting then they cannot use it as evidence for lazy staff. They can watch staff and make themselves aware of such staff behavior but legally cannot use it as evidence..
This is crazy! It wasn’t working out. She wasn’t what they needed. They moved her on, with 2 weeks severance pay. Then she claims…. Successfully! I feel so sorry for business owners these days with spurious claims hitting them left right and centre.
@Paul Beggan: It’s the reason why most businesses won’t give any feedback anymore
@Dow Dubrov: these guys in the wrc only look at their tiny remit of employment law, and can ignore any other part in making these, frankly ridiculous, recommendations. Again, the wrc has no legal standing, and the employee would have to go to real court (or appeal and hopefully get an Ibec guys this time) if the company do not pay. In real court, they actually look at the full tenet of employment law and precedence, and it’s obvious that the employer has a good case for letting them go and paying them in lieu of notice period.
@Paul Beggan: “Wasn’t working out”? You’d swear it was rocket science and she hasn’t the ability. She had 10 years experience in the industry! She should’ve been given fair warning and if she refused to accept the owners vision for customer service, then they let her go. Sounds more like an irrational owner than a poor employee.
@lochinvar56:
I was offered 9.75 an hour recently to manage a shop.
As a customer I hate pushy sale assistant, but I appreciate to be acknowledge and been offered assistant if needed.
I think the owners should have the right to decide the sale approach they want for their business and have a trial period to find the person they feel comfortable with to run the source of their income. A month doesn’t sounds like an unreasonable time period for a trial.
@Rosa Lopez: it is only
@Rosa Lopez: it is only fair to point out where improvements could be made to the employee and give them the oportunity to improve. Does not appear to have been the case here.
@Tony Harris: read the article. if they didn’t it would have been unfair, but they did. She seemingly ignored it as she felt in her experience customers don’t like that.
Seems she was plenty pushy when it came to compensation!!! But I hate pushy staff when I am in a shop in fairness.
I purchased a new m/b recently the sales assistant behind the counter used different tactics on me to buy Insurance several times I kept saying no she continued to hound me was getting tired of her and very close to walking out and going sonewhere else else. I would love to be able to name that shop.
@Alan Scott: I feel your pain. I bought a new l/s with the same outcome.
why can’t the shop be named?
@Seriously stunned: Why should the shop be named? They employed someone, told them what they wanted and the employee ignored them. Regardless of how much they paid her or if what they wanted was not correct it’s their business and they should have the right to run it as they like as long as it’s legal. Based on the facts in the article they did nothing wrong.
@Bunny Johnson: No procedure followed with the sacking. No mention of a written warning. Flimsy reason for dismissal. The business was in the wrong.
@lochinvar56: parties are only named if the decision is appealed.
Totally agree I will immediately leave a shop if I get a pushy sales person. A quick give me a shout if you need any help is perfect
Yes I like to browse in peace.
Totally agree I will immediately leave a shop if I get a pushy sales person.
This is a ruling which will set a dangerous precedent for the future; probationary periods are history
Get rid of the probation period its just an excuse for employers to make extra money for the 13 weeks and then let him or her go and then take on somebody else and do the same thing over and over
S
have your say