Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89694 Case Number: LCR12664 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: CASTLE OAKS HOUSE HOTEL - and - A WORKER |
Dispute concerning the alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
Recommendation:
9. The Court considers that the employer did not show substantial
grounds to justify the dismissal of the employee concerned.
The Court recommends that she be compensated by the payment of one
months salary.
The Court notes that the management is arranging for outstanding
monies due to the employee in respect of notice to be paid as
quickly as possible.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89694 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12664
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: CASTLE OAKS HOUSE HOTEL
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Hotel came under the present ownership in February, 1989.
Interviews were held and a number of former staff were offered and
accepted employment. The worker concerned was one of the former
staff who was interviewed. She was previously employed as a
receptionist. However she was not offered a job at that time.
Management informed her, in reply to her query as to why she was
unsuccessful at interview, that the Hotel needed some new staff.
4. The Hotel opened for business in March, 1989. The Management
experienced problems in the reception area and on 3rd April, 1989
the worker was employed as a receptionist. Things improved in
reception and management were happy with her work.
5. A new general manager was appointed in May, 1989. Almost from
the start of his employment there was a clash of personalities
between the new manager and the worker concerned. The owner spoke
to the worker concerned about her attitude to the new manager and
advised her that it would have to improve. On the 17th July, 1989
the owner met with the worker concerned and informed her that as
there had been no improvement in the situation and as this was
having a bad effect on the Hotel she should resign, if not he
would have no alternative but to dismiss her. She was given her
P.45 and outstanding monies due a couple of weeks after her
employment was terminated. However, at the Labour Court hearing
it transpired that the worker was due pay in lieu of notice and
the employer undertook to pay her this money as soon as possible.
6. The worker referred the dispute to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. The employer declined an
invitation to attend a Rights Commissioner's investigation. The
worker then referred the dispute to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation under Section 20(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The worker agreed to be bound by
the Courts recommendation.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. At the meeting between the worker and her employer held on
the 17th July, 1989, it was suggested that she resign on
health grounds. Her colleagues were subsequently informed
that she was absent from work due to illness and that she was
under extreme personal stress. The worker resents these
allegations as they were completely untrue.
2. The worker was not afforded an opportunity to work her
notice even though she requested it.
3. Apart from the worker's alleged clash of personalities
with the general manager, there was no just cause for her
dismissal. In fact she had been complimented on a number
occasions by her employer on her work performance. The worker
considers that advantage was taken of the fact that she was
employed for only three and a half months.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The worker concerned had been warned about her attitude to
the general manager and about speaking about their differences
to customers and guests as well as her colleagues. She was
afforded an opportunity to make amends and improve her
attitude. She did not avail of this opportunity and
circumstances did not improve.
2. The differences between the worker and the manager were
causing a bad atmosphere in the hotel and leading to tension
among the other staff. Under the circumstances the Company
was left with no alternative but to terminate the worker's
employment. Since her departure there has been an improvement
in working relationships in the hotel.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. The Court considers that the employer did not show substantial
grounds to justify the dismissal of the employee concerned.
The Court recommends that she be compensated by the payment of one
months salary.
The Court notes that the management is arranging for outstanding
monies due to the employee in respect of notice to be paid as
quickly as possible.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
__________________________
30th November, 1989. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.