Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89456 Case Number: AD8953 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: MISSING LINK LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Appeal, by the worker against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. BC 36/89.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court is of the opinion that the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation should stand. The Court so decides.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Shiel Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89456 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD5389
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: MISSING LINK LIMITED
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal, by the worker against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. BC 36/89.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed by the Company as a machinist for ten
months. She was dismissed from her employment on 27th January,
1989. She had been given one week's notice and her holiday pay.
The worker considered her dismissal to be unfair and referred the
matter to a Rights Commissioner who held an investigation on 10th
April, 1989. The employer, who was notified of the investigation,
did not attend. Neither did the employer raise any objection to
the investigation. On 14th April, 1989, the Rights Commissioner
issued the following recommendation-
"Having given full and careful consideration to the
points made by the claimant and having subjected
this testimony to the most rigorous examination I
am, in the absence of any submission from the
employer, satisfied that the worker* was unfairly
dismissed from her employment as a machinist.
I do not recommend reinstatement but I do propose as
my recommendation that Missing Link pay to the
worker the sum of #150 and that this is accepted by
her in full and final settlement of all claims on
the Company in relation to the termination of her
employment. I further suggest that a reference
testifying to the worker's capabilities should be
furnished by Missing Link Ltd."
* the worker was named by the Rights Commissioner.
The worker appealed this recommendation to the Labour Court on 9th
June, under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969,
contending that the level of compensation recommended was
inadequate. The Court heard the appeal on 17th July, 1989.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker does not know the reason for her dismissal.
The only reason stated by her employer was that she "had a bad
attitude". The worker did not understand what was meant by
this. She considered that she worked hard at her job and that
her dismissal was unfair.
2. The worker has twenty years' experience in the clothing
trade and her dismissal has effected her reputation as an
employee.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker's attitude to her work was unsatisfactory. The
employer considers that this was related to tension in the
workplace between the worker and the employer.
2. The worker was the most recent machinist to come to the
Company.
3. The worker was not dismissed because of any particular
incident which occurred.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court is of the opinion that the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation should stand. The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
John O'Connell
___31st___July,___1989. ___________________
A. K. / M. F. Deputy Chairman