Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9188 Case Number: AD9122 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: ACADEMY DRIVING SCHOOL - and - A WORKER |
Appeal against a Rights Commissioner's recommendation CW 237/90 regarding the alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
Recommendation:
I recommend that the School offers and the Worker accepts
#200 in settlement of this dispute.
The Worker was named in the Recommendation.
The worker rejected the recommendation and appealed it to the
Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1969. A Court hearing was held on 20 February, 1991.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. Since the Rights Commissioners hearing I received neither the
#200 awarded or a reference from the Company. I was let go
by the Company because I was out on sick leave, even though I
submitted medical certificates on a weekly basis. At no time
was I warned my job was in jeopardy and at different times,
my mother, brother and fiancee contacted the Company on my
behalf. Indeed my letter of dismissal crossed a valid sick
note from my doctor.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is operating in a very competitive business
environment and the position of receptionist is crucial both
as a front line for customers and a contact point for
instructors. Due to the key role of the receptionists they
must contact the office prior to their start time if for any
reason they will be absent from work. Both our receptionists
were fully aware of their situation.
2. The worker had been out sick on a number of occasions
and the Company received no prior warnings or information
(details supplied to the Court). During the six to seven
week period of her absence the Company made efforts to
contact the worker to find out what was wrong and when she
would be in a position to return to work. During this period
the worker made no contact by telephone or message to inform
the Company that she would not be in. Due to the lack of a
receptionist, a loss of business was suffered from which the
Company has yet to recover. The Company is willing to accept
the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties and
noting that the Company are prepared to give the appellant a
reference, the Court is of the view that the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation is fair and reasonable in the circumstances. The
Court accordingly upholds the Rights Commissioner's recommendation
and so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9188 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD2291
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
PARTIES: ACADEMY DRIVING SCHOOL
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against a Rights Commissioner's recommendation
CW 237/90 regarding the alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company was formed in 1988 and employs 13 workers, which
is made up of 2 receptionists and 11 driving instructors. The
worker concerned was a receptionist. The 2 receptionists work a
split shift to cover the office from 8am to 9pm.
The worker took sick leave on the 3rd August 1990 and was let go
by the Company after a period of 6 weeks' sick absence. The
Company claimed that the position of receptionist was essential as
it operates in a very competitive business. The Company was not
able to hold the worker's job open when they were unaware as to
what was wrong with the worker and when she would return (details
supplied to the Court). The worker claimed that medical
certificates were sent in every week. The Company requested
weekly phone calls to appraise them of the situation and when
neither a medical certificate or a telephone call was received on
Tuesday, 18th September, 1990, a letter of dismissal was issued on
Wednesday, 19th September, 1990. This letter of dismissal crossed
in the post with a valid sick note posted by the worker which
arrived on 19th September, 1990. The matter was referred to a
Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. The
Rights Commissioner having investigated the dispute on 26th
November, 1990 issued the following findings and recommendation on
10th December, 1990.
FINDINGS
The worker claimed that she had arranged for someone to phone
in on Wednesday, but the Company had no record of this. I
must presume that the dismissal might not have occurred if
the Worker had made arrangements for her sick notes to cover
the time elapsed by posting them. She had been a good
employee but the School claimed that it lost business through
the lack of her shift cover when she was expected in but
failed to show up. I note that the Worker was fit to work
from early October.
RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that the School offers and the Worker accepts
#200 in settlement of this dispute.
The Worker was named in the Recommendation.
The worker rejected the recommendation and appealed it to the
Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1969. A Court hearing was held on 20 February, 1991.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. Since the Rights Commissioners hearing I received neither the
#200 awarded or a reference from the Company. I was let go
by the Company because I was out on sick leave, even though I
submitted medical certificates on a weekly basis. At no time
was I warned my job was in jeopardy and at different times,
my mother, brother and fiancee contacted the Company on my
behalf. Indeed my letter of dismissal crossed a valid sick
note from my doctor.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is operating in a very competitive business
environment and the position of receptionist is crucial both
as a front line for customers and a contact point for
instructors. Due to the key role of the receptionists they
must contact the office prior to their start time if for any
reason they will be absent from work. Both our receptionists
were fully aware of their situation.
2. The worker had been out sick on a number of occasions
and the Company received no prior warnings or information
(details supplied to the Court). During the six to seven
week period of her absence the Company made efforts to
contact the worker to find out what was wrong and when she
would be in a position to return to work. During this period
the worker made no contact by telephone or message to inform
the Company that she would not be in. Due to the lack of a
receptionist, a loss of business was suffered from which the
Company has yet to recover. The Company is willing to accept
the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties and
noting that the Company are prepared to give the appellant a
reference, the Court is of the view that the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation is fair and reasonable in the circumstances. The
Court accordingly upholds the Rights Commissioner's recommendation
and so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
15th March, 1991 Evelyn Owens
J.F./M.O'C. _______________
Deputy Chairman