Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88133 Case Number: AD8816 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: BALLYFIRM BEDDING LIMITED - and - A WORKER;F.L.A.C. |
Appeal against Rights Commissioners Recommendation DM/28/87 concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the submissions finds no reason to
alter the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation and accordingly
rejects the appeal.
The Court notes the Employer's willingness to furnish the
appellant with a reference.
The Court so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88133 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD1688
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: BALLYFIRM BEDDING LIMITED
and
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY F.L.A.C.)
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioners Recommendation DM/28/87
concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. This appeal concerns a worker employed by the Company as an
upholsterer from 4th August, 1987 until 23rd October, 1987 when he
was dismissed. In the week-ending the 23rd October, 1987 the
worker had been absent from work and did not contact the Company.
On 23rd October, 1987 the Company informed the worker that he had
been dismissed because he had been absent from work and had made
no contact with the Company. The worker claimed the dismissal was
unfair and sought compensation. The Company rejected the claim.
No agreement was reached through local negotiations and the matter
was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and
recommendation. On 27th January, 1988 the Rights Commissioner
issued his recommendation as follows:
"I feel the employer did not behave unreasonably in assuming
that the worker had left the employment when he failed to
make contact for a whole week and having regard to the
worker's casual approach to attendance, I consider that the
dismissal was not unfair, and I do not recommend that any
compensation should be paid to the worker."
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioners Recommendation).
On 9th February, 1988 the worker appealed the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation to the Labour Court under Section
13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the
appeal on 15th March, 1988.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker had always attended his work regularly and was
only absent in the case certified sickness. He had never been
warned about any absence nor were there any set procedures
within the Company with regard to notification in the case of
sickness.
3. 2. It is unfair and unreasonable that an employee be
dismissed for a short period of absence due to certified
sickness. It is also unfair and unreasonable that an employee
be dismissed without any opportunity to explain the
circumstances from which the dismissal arose. While a warning
might have been appropriate for the worker's failure to notify
the Company of his absence the sanction of summary dismissal
was totally out of proportion.
3. The worker received no notice or pay in lieu on his
dismissal. Nor did he receive any reference. Because of the
circumstances of the dismissal and the small size of the
Company the worker feels that re-instatement would not be
feasible. He therefore seeks a reference and compensation.
4. The worker was feeling unwell on 16th October and left
work, with the permission of one of the Company directors.
His illness continued into the following week. He attempted
to contact the Company on several occasions by phone but was
unable to do so. When the worker received the Company's
letter on 23rd October, 1987 he went to the factory to try and
explain. However the Company confirmed the dismissal. The
worker had a medical certificate with him for the period in
question but was not given the opportunity to present this to
the employer.
5. The worker had no difficulties with the work and had no
complaints from the Company. He had no complaints from the
Company regarding his attendance. He had submitted a medical
certificate to the Company in respect of an earlier absence.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was absent for one full week without contacting
the Company. It was not the first time it had happened. The
Company cannot afford to run a small business not knowing
whether workers were going to come into work.
2. When the worker did arrive back to work on 23rd October,
1987 he handed in a doctors note that covered him up to 21st
October, 1987. In the last eight weeks of his employment the
worker only attended for three full weeks work (details
supplied to the Court).
3. The worker lives near enough to one of the Company
directors to have contacted him if he was unable to get
through to the Company by phone.
DECISION:
5. The Court having considered the submissions finds no reason to
alter the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation and accordingly
rejects the appeal.
The Court notes the Employer's willingness to furnish the
appellant with a reference.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
__________________________
28th March, 1988 Deputy Chairman.
T.O'M./J.C.