Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91115 Case Number: LCR13237 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: SCULLY TYRRELL AND COMPANY - and - A WORKER |
Claim by the worker concerning her alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
5. The Court notes that the Company indicated that they would not
attend the hearing and submitted a written statement. The
claimant did not dispute the contents of that statement.
Having considered the submissions and taking into account the
claimant's position in relation to re-instatement and payments
received, the Court, whilst accepting that the Company acted
within the strict terms of their contract, also accepts that the
claimant has a genuine grievance in that her employment was
terminated whilst two new employees were taken on and no adequate
explanation was given to her.
No other claim was made to the Court.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91115 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13237
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: SCULLY TYRRELL AND COMPANY
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the worker concerning her alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was employed by the Company as an
audio-typist on 15th January, 1990. She was employed in a
temporary capacity for a minimum of three months. At the end of
April, 1990, she asked her employer if her employment was to
continue. She was told to carry on as she was. On 25th July,
1990, her daughter was admitted to hospital for open-heart
surgery. The worker requested leave of absence. This was granted
and she was asked to inform the Company when she would be able to
return to work. Approximately five weeks later the Company
requested the worker to return as they were very busy. The worker
returned to work on 10th September, 1990, and was informed that
she would be required for the foreseeable future. During the
worker's absence, the Company employed two temporary typists. One
of these was subsequently let go. From 10th September, 1990, the
worker concerned and another secretary shared the secretarial work
of one of the Company's partners. On 9th November, 1990 she was
asked to type for another partner whose secretary was on maternity
leave. On 21st November, 1990, the worker was informed that her
services would not be required after 21st December, 1990. The
worker believed she was unfairly dismissed and referred the matter
to the Rights Commissioner Service. The Company declined to be
party to a Rights Commissioner's investigation. On 1st February,
1991, the worker referred the matter to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation under Section 20(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. Prior to the Court's
investigation of the matter on 5th March, 1991, the worker agreed
to be bound by the Court's recommendation. Whilst the Company was
not represented at the hearing a submission on their behalf was
received. A synopsis of this is at paragraph 4 below.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. When the worker was given a month's notice on 21st
November, 1990, she was informed that she was no longer
required as the secretary who was on maternity leave would be
returning in early January, 1991. She was not satisfied with
this as it had never been implied to her that she was
replacing the secretary who was on maternity leave. When she
subsequently queried this she was informed that there had been
complaints about her work when she had originally started
eleven months earlier. The worker pursued this as it had
never been suggested to her that her work was unsatisfactory
and was informed that her work had improved and this had
nothing to do with her being let go. Indeed, she had been
praised for her work and subsequently received a good
reference from the Company.
2. While the worker concerned was working out her notice,
two new workers were employed. They are still working for the
Company. The worker contends that this made things very
awkward for her because it made it appear as if she had done
something to deserve being dismissed. The worker cannot
understand why she was let go and at the time several of the
partners expressed surprise that she was being let go.
3. The worker dismisses completely the Company's
explanation that she was only brought back in September, 1990,
to replace the secretary on maternity leave. She was only
doing that work from 9th November, 1990.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. The worker concerned was offered a temporary post by letter
dated 12th January, 1990. There was never any undertaking to
provide her with a permanent position. She worked for the
firm for a little over ten months. This ten month period was
broken when she left the firm on 25th July, 1990, to look
after her sick child. The worker concerned was given a
month's notice that her temporary contract was not being
extended past 21st December, 1990.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court notes that the Company indicated that they would not
attend the hearing and submitted a written statement. The
claimant did not dispute the contents of that statement.
Having considered the submissions and taking into account the
claimant's position in relation to re-instatement and payments
received, the Court, whilst accepting that the Company acted
within the strict terms of their contract, also accepts that the
claimant has a genuine grievance in that her employment was
terminated whilst two new employees were taken on and no adequate
explanation was given to her.
No other claim was made to the Court.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
25th March, 1991 ------------
B O'N/U.S. Deputy Chairman