Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90628 Case Number: LCR13148 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: BRAY HEADS (HAIRDRESSERS) - and - A WORKER |
Dispute concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and finds that at no time was the question of complaints against
Ms. O'Neill brought to her attention. She was at no stage given
to understand that her job was in jeopardy.
Given all the circumstances of the case the Court considers she
was unfairly dismissed and should be compensated by payment of a
lump sum in the amount of #150.
The Court also considers Ms. O'Neill should be provided with a
suitable reference.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90628 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13148
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: BRAY HEADS (HAIRDRESSERS)
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed as a senior cutter and manageress by
the Company from the 23rd June, 1990 to 22nd September, 1990. The
worker was dismissed on the evening of the 22nd of September as
her employer claimed that she did not want the responsibility of
managing the salon. A reference was provided in which this was
stated. As the case could not be heard by the Employment Appeals
Tribunal, it was referred to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. The Company declined to attend
and the matter was referred to the Labour Court under Section
20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The worker agreed to
be bound by the recommendation of the Court. A Court hearing took
place on 28th November, 1990.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. No complaints or warnings had been made about quality,
attendance, timekeeping of the employee's work, other than one
incident (details given to the Court). Although aware that
other staff were on a three month trial basis there was never
an oral or written suggestion that this applied to the worker
concerned. She was recruited from other employment for
managerial and supervisory duties because of her experience.