Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91200 Case Number: LCR13288 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: AVIS RENT A CAR (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
5. The Court notes that the Company declined to attend the
hearing and submitted a written submission. Having considered the
submissions from the parties the Court is of the view that the
claimant was unfairly treated and accordingly recommends
(a) That Avis Rent A Car Limited give her a satisfactory
reference, and
(b) Pay an ex-gratia sum of #200.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91200 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13288
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
PARTIES: AVIS RENT A CAR (IRELAND) LIMITED
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was employed by the Company on a
temporary basis from 6th June, 1989 to 31st October, 1989 as a
secretary at their Garage at the Airport Industrial Estate,
Santry. On 12th March, 1990 the worker commenced permanent
employment with the Company on a six month probationary period as
switchboard operator/car control assistant in Hanover Street.
Approximately six weeks later the worker was asked if she would
like to take over the position of secretary in the Leasing Office
which was vacant. The worker accepted this position and started
work in it a few weeks later. On Friday 11th January, 1991 the
Fleet/Administration Manager informed the worker that she was
being dismissed as her level of absenteeism was unacceptable as
she had had eleven days of sick leave since the start of her
employment. The worker received one month's pay in lieu of
notice. This was unacceptable to the worker who claims that her
dismissal was unfair and at no stage had she received any
warnings. The worker subsequently referred the matter to the
Rights Commissioner's Service however the Company declined an
invitation to attend such an investigation. On 14th March, 1991
the worker referred the matter 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 recommendation of the Court. The Court investigated the
dispute on 14th May, 1991. The Company declined an invitation to
attend this hearing but submitted background details of the case
to the Court. These are set out under the Company's arguments at
paragraph 4 below.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was employed by the Company in a permanent
position subsequent to a temporary period of employment in
1989 for which she received a reference from the Garage
Manager (details supplied to the Court). The worker settled
into the job of secretary in the Leasing Office very well as
it gave her more responsibility and job satisfaction. The
worker did not at any stage during her period of employment
receive any warnings about her performance or behaviour and
her dismissal on 11th January, 1991 was therefore a great
shock to her. The worker was out sick from work on three
occasions for a total of eleven days but had a doctor's
certificate for those absences. The worker is now in a
situation where her efforts to secure future employment are
severely restricted by the fact that she has no reference from
this Company and a reference should be supplied.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS;
4. 1. Staffing in the Leasing Department consisted of an
administration supervisor, two sales executives and a
secretary/typist. The worker concerned here was the
secretary/typist. The Leasing Department is an extremely busy
division of the Company with responsibility for the efficient
running of a large fleet of vehicles on long-term lease. The
Company is more than aware that people can go sick without
notice. However, in the case of this worker the amount of
absenteeism was totally unacceptable (details supplied to the
Court). These periods of alleged sickness were all connected
with weekends, in particular Bank Holiday ones, and this put
an even greater strain on the remaining staff as enquiries
from customers are generally at their highest at these times.
The situation which was unfair to both the Company and the
other staff in the department could not be allowed to
continue.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court notes that the Company declined to attend the
hearing and submitted a written submission. Having considered the
submissions from the parties the Court is of the view that the
claimant was unfairly treated and accordingly recommends
(a) That Avis Rent A Car Limited give her a satisfactory
reference, and
(b) Pay an ex-gratia sum of #200.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
______________________
24th May, 1991. Deputy Chairman
U.M./J.C.