Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91385 Case Number: LCR13421 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: GEMINI STATIONERY - and - A WORKER |
Claim by the worker concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
6. Having considered the evidence presented by the parties
including the Department of Social Welfare decision that the
worker lost her employment through her own misconduct, the Court
considers that the worker was less than fairly treated by the
employer in the overall handling of her departure from employment.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that the employer pay the worker
a sum of £150 in full and final settlement of the issue.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91385 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13421
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: GEMINI STATIONERY
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the worker concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker commenced employment with the Company on 4th
February, 1991. Her nett pay was £92 a week. In April, 1991 the
worker approached her employer seeking a pay rise as other workers
had received one. Her employer informed her that he would think
about it over the weekend. On the following Monday (29th April,
1991) a conversation took place between the worker and the
employer following which her employment was terminated.
3. The worker referred the issue to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. The Employer declined an
invitation to attend a Rights Commissioner's investigation. The
worker then referred her claim to the Labour Court under Section
20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The worker agreed to
be bound by the Courts recommendation.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was sacked because she sought a pay rise in
line with the National Agreement then operating and in line
with an increase that other staff had received. The employer
informed her that he could not afford to give her a pay rise
and that as she was obviously unhappy with this she would be
looking for an other job and he would not pay her while she
was doing so. The worker was also informed that she was on a
six month trial period. This was the first time that the
worker was aware that she was on probation. As a result of
her employment being terminated she was unable to receive
unemployment benefit for six weeks as the Department of Social
Welfare informed her that she lost her job through her own
misconduct.
2. The worker carried out her duties to the best of her
abilities and on occasions performed work outside her normal
duties (details supplied to the Court). As a consequence she
considers she was unfairly dismissed.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The worker left her employment of her own accord. At
interview stage she was informed that she was being employed
on a six month trial period and that wage reviews took place
every April based on work performance. In her case she was
informed that her first review would take place in April,
1992.
2. When the worker applied for a wage increase she was
reminded that her wage review would take place in April, 1992.
The worker stated that she would have to look for work
elsewhere. She was informed that she was being trained for a
specific job and that if she felt that she was unable to
continue working with the firm it was in both parties interest
to terminate her employment. She would be free to seek
employment elsewhere and the Company would be free to recruit
someone for the job she was being trained for. Shortly
afterwards the worker terminated her employment as she was
disappointed at not receiving a wage increase.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. Having considered the evidence presented by the parties
including the Department of Social Welfare decision that the
worker lost her employment through her own misconduct, the Court
considers that the worker was less than fairly treated by the
employer in the overall handling of her departure from employment.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that the employer pay the worker
a sum of £150 in full and final settlement of the issue.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
30th September, 1991 ----------------
M.D. / U.S. Chairman