Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90333 Case Number: LCR13013 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: RENNICKS (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Claim by a worker that she was unfairly dismissed.
Recommendation:
5. From the submissions made to it, it seems clear to the Court
that, perhaps understandably in the circumstances, the purpose of
the interview with the Management representative was misunderstood
by the claimant.
The Court, further particularly notes the Company's offer to the
claimant of her previous position which clearly eliminates any
imputation on her character or reputation which she may feel was
or is at stake. It takes the view that she should give serious
consideration to this option, but in the event of her not doing so
the Court also notes the Company's willingness to give her a
reference and recommends that should the claimant choose this
course she should inform the Company accordingly.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90333 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13013
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: RENNICKS (IRELAND) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by a worker that she was unfairly dismissed.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the plastic injection moulding
business. The worker concerned was initially employed by the
Company from November, 1988 to May, 1989. She was subsequently
re-employed in September, 1989. On 2nd April, 1990 the worker was
summoned to the office of a director of the Company. The worker
claims that she was then unfairly dismissed on the basis of
complaints from other workers (details supplied to the Court)
which were unfounded. The Company claims that when the complaints
were raised with the worker she took exception and resigned
despite the protests of management. The worker referred the
matter to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. The hearing took place on 23rd August, 1990.
Prior to the hearing the worker agreed to be bound by the Court's
recommendation.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The complaints made against the worker are unfounded and
untrue. Prior of 2nd April, 1990 she had not received notice
that complaints had been made about her. They impugn her good
name and reputation.
2. The worker did not resign as claimed by the Company. She
was unfairly dismissed on the basis of false allegations. She
should receive an apology and a reference from the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was not dismissed by the Company. She resigned
of her own free will and did so despite the protests of
Management.
2. The Company did not wish to hurt or harm the worker's
feelings in any way. There was no attempt to impugn her good
name or reputation. Management endeavoured to explain the
complaints made about her in an understanding and reasonable
way.
3. It is the Company's opinion that the worker did not wish
to continue in employment as the evening shift on which she
worked was unsuitable for domestic reasons. The worker had
requested a move from the evening shift to the night shift but
the Company was unable to facilitate her at that time.
4. The Company found the worker to be a good employee and had
re-employed her in September, 1989. The Company would be
prepared to offer the worker re-employment in her previous
position and is willing to provide her with a reference if
required.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. From the submissions made to it, it seems clear to the Court
that, perhaps understandably in the circumstances, the purpose of
the interview with the Management representative was misunderstood
by the claimant.
The Court, further particularly notes the Company's offer to the
claimant of her previous position which clearly eliminates any
imputation on her character or reputation which she may feel was
or is at stake. It takes the view that she should give serious
consideration to this option, but in the event of her not doing so
the Court also notes the Company's willingness to give her a
reference and recommends that should the claimant choose this
course she should inform the Company accordingly.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_______________________
7th September, 1990. Deputy Chairman
A.S./J.C.