Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91305 Case Number: LCR13372 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: O'BYRNE ASSOCIATES LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Dispute concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered all of the circumstances of the
case as put forward by the parties in their oral and written
submissions finds that the complainant was unfairly dismissed.
The Court recommends that the Company make available to her a
suitable reference and that they make a compensation payment in
the amount of #750.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91305 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13372
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
PARTIES: O'BYRNE ASSOCIATES LIMITED
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was employed by the Company from the
28th May, 1990 to the 28th February, 1991. She was dismissed
on the 28th February, 1991 when the Company by letter alleged that
she left her employment without permission and that it was assumed
that she did not intend to return to her employment.
3. The worker claimed that her dismissal was unfair and referred
the dispute to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. The
Company objected to such an investigation. On the 10th June,
1991, the worker referred the dispute to the Labour Court under
Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to
be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Court hearing was held
on the 16th July, 1991.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker had a hospital appointment at 8.30 a.m. on
Friday 22nd February, 1991. At 9.00 a.m., having not been
seen by her specialist, she telephoned the Company, spoke to
a colleague and advised her of the delay.
2. After the appointment the worker felt unwell. She again
telephoned the Company and explained that she was unable to
attend work that day.
3. She was still unwell on Monday 25th February. Her
mother telephoned the Company and advised that the worker
would not be attending work for a few days.
4. On Wednesday 27th February the worker received an abrupt
telephone call from the Company relating to Word Processing.
In the course of this conversation the worker explained that
she would return to work on Thursday 28th February, 1991.
5. On Thursday 28th February two colleagues came into the
office. The worker concerned explained that she was still
unwell and might not be able to remain at work that day. The
worker requested that she be given her previous week's pay.
She was given some work by an accounts executive and was not
advised that it was urgent. Later the worker explained to a
colleague that she was "going home sick". She did not say
that she was leaving her job.
6. The worker had never been told that she had to inform a
senior member of staff if she was going home sick.
7. The letter of dismissal was delivered to the worker's
home by courier at 4.30 p.m. on that Thursday. The worker
had not been contacted by the Company from the time she went
home sick.
8. The worker telephoned the Company on Friday 29th
February, 1991. The Financial Controller stated that the
worker had left the Company's employment. She cited an
incident which happened some nine weeks previously (Details
supplied to the Court) when she said that the worker
indicated that she would leave the Company, as an indication
that she had left. The worker had indicated at the time that
if there was a recurrence of the incident which was offensive
to her, she would consider leaving. However she had no cause
to consider leaving her job after this incident. It did not
happen again.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company did not get a second telephone call on
Friday, 22nd February and it was not made aware until Monday
25th February that the worker was ill and unfit for work. A
temporary secretary was employed at considerable cost to the
Company. The Company received no further communication from
the worker and she did not forward a doctor's certificate in
accordance with Company regulations.
2. When the worker arrived at the office at 9.00 a.m. on
Thursday 28th February she was asked by the accounts
executive to make some changes to a document on the word
processor. This document was to be presented to a new client
at 11.30 a.m. The worker advised the accounts executive that
she was unwell and would not be staying in the office as she
had only come to collect her wages. The importance and
urgency of the document was explained to the worker and she
agreed to stay and make the necessary corrections.
3. The worker left the office at 9.20 a.m. approximately
without telling the accounts executive that she was unable to
complete the task as promised. She failed to advise any
senior staff member of her departure. She advised the most
junior staff member that she was going home. From her
actions the Company assumed that the worker did not intend to
return and she was issued with her P.45.
4. The Company feels that it was justified in dismissing
the worker. She did not submit a doctor's certificate even
though she was fully aware of her obligation in this regard.
She had previously produced one for an earlier illness. She
did not inform Management that she intended going home,
knowing it was Management's responsibility to arrange staff
requirements. She did not advise the accounts executive of
her inability to complete an important document. She had
previously had various days off due to illness and had
become rather unreliable. However, on these occasions she
was given the benefit of the doubt.
5. The Company had nothing to gain by losing the worker
concerned. She had just been trained, at considerable cost
to the Company, in its new Word Processing package. In fact
the opposite is true - it has cost the Company dearly in
temporary staff costs re training, etc.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered all of the circumstances of the
case as put forward by the parties in their oral and written
submissions finds that the complainant was unfairly dismissed.
The Court recommends that the Company make available to her a
suitable reference and that they make a compensation payment in
the amount of #750.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
2nd August, 1991 Tom McGrath
T.O'D / M.O'C. _______________
Deputy Chairman