Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91260 Case Number: LCR13345 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: CLARE TEXTILES LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Dispute concerning the termination of the employment of a worker.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the submissions of the parties
considers that the appellant was unfairly treated given the
circumstances of her recruitment.
The Court recommends that the Company pay her a sum of #800 in
full and final settlement.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91260 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13345
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
PARTIES: CLARE TEXTILES LIMITED
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the termination of the employment of a
worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures and sells textiles and clothes. It
is a subsidiary of a UK based parent. The worker joined the
Company as Sales/Divisional Manager on 19th November, 1990 at its
Dublin office. In a rationalisation programme in February, 1991,
the workers at the Dublin office were made redundant. The worker
was earning #15,000 basic per annum plus an incentive bonus
package.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker did not apply for a position with the Company
but was headhhunted by the then general manager from a secure
position with another Company. The worker was made
redundant less than 13 weeks later with 4 days notice.
Having left a secure position, she was left by the Company in
a very difficult situation both personally and financially.
2. It must have been clear to the Company on employing the
worker that her position was unsustainable. Despite this,
the recruitment went ahead and the worker committed herself
to the new job. This commitment which included late nights
and weekend working, would appear to have been misplaced.
Some 2.50 months after she started working for the Company she
was made redundant.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has been experiencing difficult trading
conditions for some time. A new general manager was
appointed in the Spring of 1991 and a rationalisation process
began. The Dublin office was closed and all workers
(including the claimant) were made redundant, receiving their
full entitlements. Unfortunately because of her short
service, the worker was not entitled to a large settlement.
The position occupied by the worker has not been filled and
she will not be replaced in the foreseeable future.
2. The Company regrets that it had to rationalise but
trading circumstances dictated that certain changes be made
in the management structure. The Company regrets the
discomfort and grief caused to the worker but the previous
general manager made all the decisions relating to her
appointment, even though he was aware of the difficult
trading circumstances and the serious need to reduce rather
than increase expenditure under all headings.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the submissions of the parties
considers that the appellant was unfairly treated given the
circumstances of her recruitment.
The Court recommends that the Company pay her a sum of #800 in
full and final settlement.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
____________________
12th July, 1991
J.F. / M.O'C. Deputy Chairman