Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90492 Case Number: LCR13092 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: ATLANTIC MAGNETICS - and - A WORKER |
Alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties and the
additional documentary evidence submitted at the Court's request,
the Court is satisfied that Atlantic Magnetics were not the
employer of the worker involved.
Accordingly the Court cannot issue a finding on the claim as
lodged.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90492 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13092
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: ATLANTIC MAGNETICS
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned worked as a production operator in the
Company from 24th January, 1990 to 15th May, 1990. She worked on
the swing shift until April when she was transferred to the night
shift. On 7th May, 1990 the worker was sent home by her
supervisor as she was sick. She returned to work after her
absence due to sickness on 14th May, 1990 and when she had
finished her shift she was informed that she was being dismissed.
This was unacceptable to the worker who claims that she was told
she was being dismissed due to her absence. The worker felt that
this was unfair as she had sent a doctor's note into the Company.
Management's position is that the worker was not an employee of
theirs but of a Company called C.C.S. Ltd., which it used to
supply it with general operatives. Further, that the worker was
dismissed as the night shift line which the worker was on became
inoperable and because the worker had an unacceptable number of
lates/absences. The worker subsequently referred the matter to
the Rights Commissioners Service for investigation and
recommendation. However, the Company was not agreeable to such an
investigation and on 27th August, 1990 the worker referred the
matter 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 recommendation of the Court. The
Court investigated the dispute on 2nd October, 1990. Further
information was supplied to the Court by the parties after the
hearing.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was on the night shift on 7th May, 1990 when
she was sent home by her supervisor because she had taken
sick. The following day the worker went to see her doctor who
gave her a note to say that she would be unfit for work until
14th May, 1990 and this was sent into the Company. When the
worker reported for work on the evening of 14th May, 1990 she
spoke to her supervisor and no remarks were made to her.
However, at finishing time the next morning the worker was
informed that she was being dismissed due to her absence. The
worker explained that she had been sick, had sent a doctor's
note into the Company and had informed the Company through a
friend of hers that she would not be able to attend work. The
worker has been employed by a number of companies since 1987
and has never before been in trouble in relation to attendance
and/or timekeeping. It was unreasonable of the Company to
dismiss the worker and she should receive compensation and a
reference.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. When the Company was set up it was decided that no new
direct employees would be employed by the Company and that an
employment agency, C.C.S. Ltd., would be used to supply
general operatives (details supplied to the Court).
Therefore, the worker was never an employee of this Company as
her employment was sub-contracted to this Company by C.C.S.
It was explained to all candidates that the work was of a
temporary nature on a week to week basis, that absenteeism and
lateness would seriously interfere with production and
consequently put their contract in jeopardy. The night shift
line became inoperable due to persistent late arrivals and
poor attendance on the part of a number of workers. When the
line was reduced to one worker, it was apparent that it was no
longer practical to continue and the night shift ceased. The
worker was dismissed because the night shift on her particular
production line was disbanded and she had an unacceptable
number of lates/absences (details supplied to the Court). As
the worker was not an employee of this Company it is not
responsible for discharging any liabilities or otherwise
arising from the termination of the contract of employment.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties and the
additional documentary evidence submitted at the Court's request,
the Court is satisfied that Atlantic Magnetics were not the
employer of the worker involved.
Accordingly the Court cannot issue a finding on the claim as
lodged.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
__26th__November,__1990. ___________________
U. M. / M. F. Deputy Chairman