Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87224 Case Number: LCR11157 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: GERALDINES CAKE SHOP - and - MR. DAVID GRAHAM |
Alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
Recommendation:
5. In light of the circumstances obtaining in this case the Court
recommends that the claimant be granted a further two weeks' pay
in lieu of notice.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Shiel Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87224 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11157
SECTION 20(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11157
Parties: GERALDINES CAKE SHOP
and
A WORKER
Subject:
1. Alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
Background:
2. The business is a small family owned business which was opened
on December 12, 1985, by a husband and wife team. In March, 1986,
it was decided to employ help in the bakery as the workload was
becoming too onerous. The Employer interviewed four people for
the job. The worker involved in the present dispute stated that
he was married with one child and was desperate for a job. He was
informed that cleanliness, punctuality, and reliability were
essential for the job. He was employed at a salary of #95 per
week. The worker's employment was terminated as of the 9th of
February, 1987. The Employer states that the reason given for the
dismissal was that out of 10 months employment the worker was
absent on 26 days. This included an absence from the 19th of
January to the 28th of January. During a telephone conversation
on the 28th, the worker was informed that his absences were
seriously damaging the business, and he was given notice of
dismissal. The worker states that he had a medical problem, which
was the cause of most of his absences although there was some time
missed due to domestic difficulties. His sick leave absences were
certified in the majority of instances. The Employer contends
however, that even if the absences were genuine and not bogus,
they amount to an inability to fullfill the contract of
employment. He was given a formal warning, on the matter in
August, 1986. The worker contends that he was unfairly dismissed
while absent due to sickness. He referred the matter to the Court
for investigation and recommendation under Section 20(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Court hearing took place on
27th April, 1987.
Worker's arguments:
3. (i) The worker's absences were due to a certified medical
condition and on occasion, because of a serious
domestic problem (details with Court). Although
certain mistakes were pointed out to the worker, he
does not believe that there was anything unusual, or
out of the ordinary in this. In the main, he and the
woman co-owner of the business worked well together,
and were on good terms with each other.
(ii) The worker does not believe that his work was of an
unsatisfactory nature. His absences were not within
his control, as he was suffering from a chronic medical
complaint. In all the circumstances, he believes that
to inform him that he was dismissed while he was out
sick was completely unjustified.
Employer's arguments:
4. (a) This is a small business which was only opened on 12th
December, 1985. At the interview for the job, the
worker was told that cleanliness, punctualilty, and
reliability, were essentials. The Employer found the
worker to be lacking in all three respects, and in the
interests of the business, was forced to let him go.
(b) The Employer is of the view that a chronic medical
condition, such as the one suffered by the worker, is
tantamount to an inability to fullfill the contract of
employment.
(c) During his employment the worker had to be spoken to
because the condition of his baking whites was not
satisfactory. He declined an offer to have the whites
provided and serviced by an outside Company. There
were also some complaints about the standard of his
work (details with Court). During the course of a 10
month period of employment, the worker was absent on no
fewer than 26 days. The Employer in all the
circumstances, had no option but to let the worker go.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. In light of the circumstances obtaining in this case the Court
recommends that the claimant be granted a further two weeks' pay
in lieu of notice.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell.
____________________________
9th May, 1987.
P.F./J.C. Deputy Chairman.