Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87732 Case Number: LCR11579 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: BLACK CAT LOUNGE BAR - and - MS. COLETTE CORRIGAN |
Dispute concerning the alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
Recommendation:
3. The Employer did not respond to the Court's invitation to
attend a hearing to investigate the dispute. The Court,
subsequent to the hearing afforded the Employer an opportunity to
respond to the points made by the claimant. The Employer did not
avail of this opportunity.
Accordingly the Court had to assess the case before it on the
basis of the information provided by the claimant.
The Court is of the view that the claimant was not treated in a
fair manner and recommends payment of #1,000 in compensation.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87732 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11579
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: BLACK CAT LOUNGE BAR
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The worker had 2 years' experience as a barmaid when she
responded to a newspaper advertisement for a position in the
Black Cat lounge bar. She commenced employment in January,
1987.
2. The position was on the basis of living in with full
board. Wages were #60.00 nett for approximately 42 hours per
week. In addition to the bar duties the worker served in a
shop attached to the bar.
3. In May, 1987 the worker became ill and went to her doctor
who advised her to absent herself from work for 4 days and
issued her with a medical certificate to that effect. When
she handed the certificate to her employer he asked her to
work that night, being a Thursday, which is normally busy.
The worker agreed to work that night.
4. Around that time the worker decided to respond to job
advertisements in a local paper. One of the advertisements
she responded to was placed by her Employer under a box
number.
5. When the worker reported for duty after the expiry of the
medical certificate, she was dismissed from her employment.
6. The worker subsequently contacted the Irish Transport and
General Workers Union (I.T.G.W.U.) who advised her to seek an
investigation by a Rights Commissioner. The Employer declined
an invitation to attend. The matter was referred with the
assistance of the Union to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court. The Employer declined an invitation to attend a
conciliation conference. The worker then referred the matter
to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation under
Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Court
hearing was held in Kilkenny on 3rd November, 1987. The
Employer did not attend the hearing.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Despite the worker's short time service, her Employer has
no right to dismiss her without just cause. Throughout her
more than 4 months employment, she got on well and gave her
Employer no reason to bring any dissatisfaction to her
attention.
2. The fact that she was absent for 4 days was not her fault.
She was genuinely ill and had medical certification to justify
her absence. Indeed, within that 4 days, she obliged her
employer by working on that Thursday night.
3. The fact that the worker responded to newspaper
advertisements was simply exploring what, if any, better job
and conditions existed. This did not mean that she had made
any decision to leave her job at the Black Cat.
4. On 18th May, 1987, the Employer issued a reference to the
worker (copy of which was supplied to the Court). The Court
will note that the Employer uses as an excuse for the
dismissal a slackness in business. There was no slackness in
business and indeed in mid-May, or soon thereafter, business
in all licensed premises in Kilkenny City picks up with the
influx of tourists. Indeed, within a couple of weeks of the
worker's dismissal, another person, clearly a replacement, was
employed.
RECOMMENDATION:
3. The Employer did not respond to the Court's invitation to
attend a hearing to investigate the dispute. The Court,
subsequent to the hearing afforded the Employer an opportunity to
respond to the points made by the claimant. The Employer did not
avail of this opportunity.
Accordingly the Court had to assess the case before it on the
basis of the information provided by the claimant.
The Court is of the view that the claimant was not treated in a
fair manner and recommends payment of #1,000 in compensation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Evelyn Owens
__11th__December,___1987. ___________________
M. D. / M. F. Deputy Chairman