Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87410 Case Number: LCR11285 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: BODY SHOP - and - MS. MICHELLE CLEARY;MS. DOROTHY BRADSHAW |
Claim, by two workers, concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
5. In the light of the submission made by the claimants, the
Court considers that they were most unfairly treated in the manner
of their dismissal. From the evidence presented, the procedures
laid down in the Employees Handbook were not adhered to by the
Company. In the circumstances the Court recommends that they each
be paid the sum of #600 compensation.
The Court notes that the Company indicated their unwillingness to
attend the Court hearing only two days prior to the actual hearing
itself.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87410 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11285
Section 20(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11285
PARTIES: THE BODY SHOP
and
TWO WORKERS
Subject:
1. Claim, by two workers, concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
Background:
2. On 10th June, 1986, the two workers concerned commenced
employment with the Company as sales assistants on a three month
trial basis. On 19th March, 1987, the two workers were advised
that their services would no longer be required. No reasons were
given to either worker as to why their employment was being
terminated. As no notice was given to the workers, they were paid
in lieu.
3. One of the workers requested a Rights Commissioner
investigation into the matter, however, the Company declined to
participate. The workers, on 4th May, 1987, referred the matter
to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation under
Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Court
hearing took place on 19th June, 1987. The Company was not
represented at the hearing.
Workers' arguments:
4. (a) The Company's Employee Handbook stipulates:
"If the Company should wish to terminate your
employment, you will receive a written statement
setting out the reasons for termination or dismissal
in accordance with the provisions of the Employment
Protection Act, 1975".
However, neither of the workers was provided with an
explanation as to why her employment was being
terminated.
(b) If the termination of employment was for disciplinary
reasons then the workers, as indicated in the
Handbook, should have been given an opportunity to
state their cases. This opportunity was not given to
either worker.
(c) The Company operates a bonus system which is based on
an assessment of the workers' performance. Both
workers received high assessment marks. Therefore,
their work performance did not justify dismissal.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. In the light of the submission made by the claimants, the
Court considers that they were most unfairly treated in the manner
of their dismissal. From the evidence presented, the procedures
laid down in the Employees Handbook were not adhered to by the
Company. In the circumstances the Court recommends that they each
be paid the sum of #600 compensation.
The Court notes that the Company indicated their unwillingness to
attend the Court hearing only two days prior to the actual hearing
itself.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
2nd July, 1987 Nicholas Fitzgerald
B.O'N./P.W. Deputy Chairman