Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9183 Case Number: LCR13235 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: CLARIS (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Claim by the worker for compensation arising from her alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
7. In view of the terms of the contract of employment which was
signed and accepted by the claimant the Court must accept the
Employer's position with regard to re-employment. The Court,
however, is not satisfied that the claimant was treated in an
equitable manner in that no valid reason was given to her as to
why she was dismissed and she was not furnished with an adequate
reference.
The Court accordingly recommends that the claimant be furnished
with a reference which includes a statement as to the manner in
which she performed her duties etc. The Court further recommends
she be paid a week's wages as compensation for the distress she
has been caused.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9183 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13235
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: CLARIS (IRELAND) LIMITED
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the worker for compensation arising from her alleged
unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company, which was set up in 1988, is a subsidiary of
Apple Computer and is based in the Airways Industrial Estate,
Dublin . It currently employs 46 full-time employees and is
engaged in the business of software publishing. The Company
supplies to the computer hardware industry. Because the market
into which it supplies is constantly fluctuating the Company
employs temporary staff from time to time.
3. The worker here concerned was hired as a softwear assembler
on 6th December, 1989. She was employed intermittingly up to 28th
September, 1989. On that date Management informed the worker here
concerned along with 3 other temporary workers that there was no
work available at the moment and that they would be contacted, if
and when production increased, about possible future employment.
They were also informed that a panel might be set up and workers
recalled off this panel on a rota basis.
4. On the 12th October, 1990 the worker received a letter from
the Company stating inter alia that her services would not be
required by the Company in the future. The worker subsequently
contacted the Company seeking a reason for her dismissal. The
worker was unhappy with the answer given by the Company and lodged
a claim for unfair dismissal. The Company rejected the claim and
the issue was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's
recommendation. A Court hearing was held on 8th March, 1991.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. When the worker approached management for a reason for
her dismissal she was informed it was for her own good as the
Company felt she was unhappy in her job. This is not a
reasonable answer. In fact the worker enjoyed working for
the Company. During her time there she never had any
complaints about her work performance or punctuality. Indeed
at a meeting subsequent to her dismissal the Company stated
that she had been a good worker. However, the Company has
failed to issue her with a reference to that effect.
2. Two other temporary workers who worked alongside the
claimant were recalled subsequent to her dismissal. One was
made permanent and the other had less service than her. The
person with less service was trained in by the claimant.
3. In dismissing the worker the Company was in breach of
its own Plant Agreement which is signed by all employees on
taking unemployment. In particular the clauses relating to
the disciplinary procedure at the relevant stages were not
adhered to and no warning was issued (details supplied to the
Court).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Company did not breach any obligation to the
worker. It was clearly indicated in her initial contract of
employment plus further renewed contracts that the nature of
her employment was temporary and was not in any way a
guarantee that this employment of a temporary or full-time
nature would continue. The worker at all times accepted this
as central to her conditions of employment.
2. Due to the nature of the market place in which the
Company is operating requirement for temporary employees will
fluctuate and consequently temporary employees are never
assured of call back.
3. The terms and conditions of employment in this Company
are excellent. At a meeting held at local level the worker
admitted that she had been treated well at all times by the
Company. The reason for the discontinuation of her
employment was that her employment was of a temporary nature
and the Company had no requirement for her services. This
decision was taken on the basis of the Company's labour
requirements in order to meet production demands.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. In view of the terms of the contract of employment which was
signed and accepted by the claimant the Court must accept the
Employer's position with regard to re-employment. The Court,
however, is not satisfied that the claimant was treated in an
equitable manner in that no valid reason was given to her as to
why she was dismissed and she was not furnished with an adequate
reference.
The Court accordingly recommends that the claimant be furnished
with a reference which includes a statement as to the manner in
which she performed her duties etc. The Court further recommends
she be paid a week's wages as compensation for the distress she
has been caused.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
25th March, 1991 Evelyn Owens
M.D. / M.O'C. _______________
Deputy Chairman