Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91251 Case Number: LCR13333 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: JACOBS INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED - and - A WORKER |
Claim by the worker concerning her alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
4. The Company having chosen not to attend the hearing and on the
basis of the information offered by the worker, the Court is of
the opinion that she was treated unfairly and with scant courtesy
by management particularly as only weeks before she had completed
her probationary period and confirmed as permanent in her
appointment.
In these circumstances the Court recommends that she be paid
compensation to the amount of #500.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91251 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13333
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: JACOBS INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the worker concerning her alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was employed by the Company on 3rd
September, 1990, on a probationary basis. Her position was as
Secretary to the Financial Director. In December, 1990, the
Financial Director informed her verbally that she was being made
permanent. On 28th February, 1991, the Financial Director called
the worker into his office and informed her that she was being let
go as her work was unsatisfactory. She was provided with her P45,
two weeks wages and holiday pay and told that she would not be
needed to work out her notice. The worker claims that she was
unfairly dismissed. The matter was referred to the Rights
Commissioner service of the Labour Relations Commission, however,
the Company declined to be party to a Rights Commissioner's
investigation. On the 24th April, 1991, the worker referred the
matter to the Labour Court for investigation under Section 20(1)
of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. Prior to the Court's
investigation of the matter on 5th June, 1991, the worker agreed
to be bound by the Court's recommendation. The Company declined
to be represented at the Court hearing.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was let go because her work was unsatisfactory,
however, at no stage during her employment was it ever
indicated to her that this was the case.
2. In November, 1990, the Financial Director informed the
worker of a promotion from Secretary to Data Inputer and
requested the person in that position to train her in. He was
informed that the worker concerned was doing very well,
however, he subsequently put somebody else into the Data
Inputer post. The worker concerned reverted to being a
Secretary.
3. The Financial Director treated the worker in a cavalier
fashion when he dismissed her. He had his feet on the desk
when he told her she was being let go. It also appears that
he was interviewing replacements for her job while she was
still working. She was unaware of this at the time. It has
been brought to the worker's attention that this has happened
to several previous employees.
4. As the worker's wages were paid on a monthly basis with a
mid-month payment, she believes she is owed another two weeks
wages. The worker believes she was treated very badly by her
employer and requests that she be given her job back.
RECOMMENDATION:
4. The Company having chosen not to attend the hearing and on the
basis of the information offered by the worker, the Court is of
the opinion that she was treated unfairly and with scant courtesy
by management particularly as only weeks before she had completed
her probationary period and confirmed as permanent in her
appointment.
In these circumstances the Court recommends that she be paid
compensation to the amount of #500.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
________________________
26th June, 1991. Deputy Chairman
B.O'N./J.C.