Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91578 Case Number: LCR13502 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: FOUR STAR PIZZAS (1) LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Claim by a worker that she was unfairly dismissed.
Recommendation:
The Court does not consider that the circumstances of the case
are sufficient to warrant a finding of unreasonable treatment
or unfair dismissal. It does however consider that an element
of misunderstanding between the parties did exist which in
essence led to a termination of employment. In all of the
circumstances the Court is of the opinion that the claimant
should be offered a sum of £100 in resolution of the issue.
The Court so recommends:
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91578 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13502
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: FOUR STAR PIZZAS (1) Limited
(Represented by Federation of Irish Employers)
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by a worker that she was unfairly dismissed.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker commenced employment with the Company in
December, 1990 at its Dun Laoighaire store. Her employment was
of a part-time nature and she worked mainly at weekends. In
August, 1991 the worker's employment with the Company ceased.
The worker claims that she was unfairly dismissed. The Company
rejects the claim. The worker referred the dispute to the
Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 5th December,
1991. Prior to the hearing the worker agreed to be bound by the
Recommendation of the Court.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker concerned was unfairly treated and harassed
by an acting manager following his appointment to the store
in April, 1991. In August, 1991 the worker phoned a senior
manager responsible for the store and complained against
the acting manager. The senior manager gave the worker one
week's holidays in order to consider her position with the
Company. When the worker rang the Company at the end of
the week's holidays she was told by the acting manager that
her employment had been terminated.
3. 2. The worker was unfairly dismissed without explanation.
She received no warnings and no letter confirming her
dismissal. Accordingly she should be compensated for her
loss of employment.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In August, 1991 the worker phoned a senior manager and
complained against the acting manager. The worker claimed
she was unable to work with the acting manager and sought a
transfer to another store. The worker was advised that a
transfer was not possible. The worker stated that she
would not work the forthcoming weekend for which she was
rostered and that she would contact the senior manager
again when she had considered her position. The worker did
not subsequently contact the senior manager. She was then
replaced by the Company.
4. 2. The worker was not dismissed. The Company understands
that the worker may have spoken to the acting manager some
days after she contacted the senior manager. However, she
did not re-establish direct contact with the senior manager
as agreed. The worker decided she could no longer work
with the acting manager and abandoned her employment with
the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court does not consider that the circumstances of the case
are sufficient to warrant a finding of unreasonable treatment
or unfair dismissal. It does however consider that an element
of misunderstanding between the parties did exist which in
essence led to a termination of employment. In all of the
circumstances the Court is of the opinion that the claimant
should be offered a sum of £100 in resolution of the issue.
The Court so recommends:
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
17th December, 1991 --------------------
A.S./N.M. Deputy Chairman