Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89748 Case Number: LCR12703 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: FANNIN HEALTHCARE LIMITED - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE |
Dispute concerning the alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
Recommendation:
7. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
recommends in the circumstances of this case, that the Company pay
the claimant an exgratia sum of #300.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89748 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12703
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: FANNIN HEALTHCARE LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
AND
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker commenced employment on the 19th September, 1988 as
a temporary receptionist typist on a weekly wage of #70 a week.
This was increased to #80 a week in February, 1989. The regular
receptionist is on sick leave since April, 1988.
3. On the afternoon of 14th August, 1989 the worker and a
colleague were ten minutes late returning to work after their
lunch. The worker here concerned was asked to report to the
personnel office where she was told that her employment with the
Company was not working out and that she was being dismissed from
her employment. She received one months salary in lieu of notice.
4. The Union referred the case to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation under Section 20(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969 as the Company declined invitations
to attend a conciliation conference or a Rights Commissioner's
hearing. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's
recommendation. A Court hearing was held on 5th January, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The worker was employed as a receptionist/typist but, on
her own initiative, served customers at the counter on several
occasions.
5. 2. On the afternoon the worker was dismissed she was 10
minutes late for work after her lunch. She was also late that
morning but had rang the Company. However, no consideration
was given to the fact that she arrived in work 3/4 to 1 hour
before starting time every morning. She had no previous
warnings, except on one occasion when she was reminded that
her sick leave, which was never paid for, might affect her
review.
3. The worker was unfairly treated by being dismissed and the
Court is asked to recommend that compensation be paid.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The worker was employed as a temporary receptionist. It
was emphasised to her on a number of occasions that her
employment was temporary.
2. Management had on a number of occasions made it known to
the worker concerned that they were dissatisfied with her
performance. Primarily they were concerned with her failure
to pass on messages in the correct manner and the extent of
her sick leave.
3. The worker concerned was temporarily employed and her
performance did not meet the Company requirements, therefore,
Management consider that they were justified in dismissing
her.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
recommends in the circumstances of this case, that the Company pay
the claimant an exgratia sum of #300.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
__15th__January,___1990. ___________________
M. D. / M. F. Deputy Chairman