Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89321 Case Number: LCR12527 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: CONFETTI (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Claim by a worker for alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
6. The Court is of the opinion, on the basis of the submission
made to it that the worker concerned was unfairly dismissed by her
employer and recommends that she paid a sum equivalent to two
weeks' pay in compensation.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Shiel Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89321 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12527
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: CONFETTI (IRELAND) LIMITED
CAFOLLA ICE CREAM LIMITED
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by a worker for alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was employed as a manageress of an ice
cream shop in Henry Street, Dublin from March, 1988 up to October,
1988. She was employed on a forty hour week, 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. and
any additional hours worked were to be paid at overtime rates.
Her gross pay was #160 a week.
3. On the 17th October, 1988 the worker states that her employer
asked her to resign. One of the reasons given was that she was
not providing adequate supervision. She was told to leave right
away and to report back the following Friday to collect a weeks
wages plus her P.45. The worker subsequently received a letter
from her employer stating that she had left her employment at the
Company's request due to an irreconcilable difference of opinion.
4. The worker referred a claim for alleged unfair dismissal to a
Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. The
Company, through its solicitors, declined an invitation to attend
a Rights Commissioner's investigation. The worker then referred
her case under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969
to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. The
worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Court
hearing was held on the 10th July, 1989. By letter dated 7th
July, 1989 the Company's solicitors informed the Court that they
would not be in attendance at the Court hearing. The letter also
stated, inter alia, that the Company has since ceased to trade and
that the worker was not unfairly or wrongfully dismissed that she
was thoroughly unsuitable for the job in which she was employed in
her attitude to other members of the staff and also her attitude
to the stocking of the business. She was warned about this on at
least three separate occasions. Her attitude did not improve and
she was dismissed.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The worker considers she was unfairly dismissed. She
worked on average 50 to 55 hours a week. She was not paid any
overtime for the excess hours worked. She carried out her
duties in an efficient manner.
2. Initially her working relationship with her employer was
good. However problems arose when another employee who was a
relation of the employer was appointed as manageress of a new
shop and extension. The worker concerned understood that the
extra work would be subsumed into her duties and that she
would receive an increase in wages.
3. Sales fell around end of September and early October and
the employer put pressure on the worker to bring the sales
back up. The employer did not appear to accept that the
decline in sales was due to the seasonal nature of the product
being sold. The worker believes that the incident which
precipitated her dismissal was her refusal to work on her day
off without pay.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court is of the opinion, on the basis of the submission
made to it that the worker concerned was unfairly dismissed by her
employer and recommends that she paid a sum equivalent to two
weeks' pay in compensation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
___________________________
23rd August, 1989. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.