Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91361 Case Number: AD9182 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: APPLE FITNESS LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Appeal by the worker against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. BC108/91, concerning her unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
"In the context of my investigation, I find that the worker
was unfairly dismissed from her employment and I recommend
compensation rather than reinstatement. My recommendation
with regard to compensation is that Gerry Crowley T/A Apple
Fitness should pay to the worker the sum of £250 and that
this be accepted by her in full and final settlement of all
claims on the employer in relation to the termination of her
employment and in relation to the manner in which that
termination was carried out."
(The worker was referred to by name in the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation).
The recommendation was rejected by the worker who appealed it to
the Labour Court on 11th July, 1991, under Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on
30th August, 1991.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It was unfortunate that the worker's illness and accident
occurred within a week of each other, but that is no reason to
dismiss her.
2. At no stage during the course of her employment did the
Company indicate that they were less than satisfied with her
performance. In fact, she received praise from the Manager of
the gymnasium for her class organisation and the quality of
her classes.
3. The Manager of the gymnasium informed the worker that the
employer refused to believe that she could be absent for so
much time with legitimate cause. It is this legitimacy that
is in question. The worker's medical advisor can verify the
necessity of her absences if required. Under the
circumstances the Company's actions are unfair and undeserved.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker concerned was dismissed for a number of
reasons. Business had been poor and it was decided to reduce
staffing. The worker was let go. She has not been replaced
by anyone else.
2. The worker did not apply herself to her work with the
energy and enthusiasm the clients expected. Some clients
complained about this. Her working partner felt that she did
not pull her weight. The worker was also regularly absent on
Mondays. She was warned about this on a number of occasions.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties, the Court
is satisfied that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation is
reasonable in the circumstances and should be upheld.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91361 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD8291
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: APPLE FITNESS LIMITED
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the worker against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. BC108/91, concerning her unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was employed by the Company on 22nd
November, 1990. She was employed as a full-time aerobic
instructress. The worker maintains that during February, 1991,
she contracted a bad dose of flu and was absent from work for a
week. Within a few days of returning to work following the
absence through illness, the worker was involved in a traffic
accident in which she received a leg injury. The worker was
absent from work for a week as a result of the accident. Upon
resuming work on 21st March, 1991, the worker alleges that another
instructor had taken over her class and when she collected her
wages from the Accounts Department, her P45 was enclosed. The
worker believed she was unfairly dismissed and referred the matter
to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On
27th June, 1991, the Rights Commissioner issued the following
recommendation:-
"In the context of my investigation, I find that the worker
was unfairly dismissed from her employment and I recommend
compensation rather than reinstatement. My recommendation
with regard to compensation is that Gerry Crowley T/A Apple
Fitness should pay to the worker the sum of £250 and that
this be accepted by her in full and final settlement of all
claims on the employer in relation to the termination of her
employment and in relation to the manner in which that
termination was carried out."
(The worker was referred to by name in the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation).
The recommendation was rejected by the worker who appealed it to
the Labour Court on 11th July, 1991, under Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on
30th August, 1991.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It was unfortunate that the worker's illness and accident
occurred within a week of each other, but that is no reason to
dismiss her.
2. At no stage during the course of her employment did the
Company indicate that they were less than satisfied with her
performance. In fact, she received praise from the Manager of
the gymnasium for her class organisation and the quality of
her classes.
3. The Manager of the gymnasium informed the worker that the
employer refused to believe that she could be absent for so
much time with legitimate cause. It is this legitimacy that
is in question. The worker's medical advisor can verify the
necessity of her absences if required. Under the
circumstances the Company's actions are unfair and undeserved.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker concerned was dismissed for a number of
reasons. Business had been poor and it was decided to reduce
staffing. The worker was let go. She has not been replaced
by anyone else.
2. The worker did not apply herself to her work with the
energy and enthusiasm the clients expected. Some clients
complained about this. Her working partner felt that she did
not pull her weight. The worker was also regularly absent on
Mondays. She was warned about this on a number of occasions.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties, the Court
is satisfied that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation is
reasonable in the circumstances and should be upheld.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_________________________
20th September, 1991. Deputy Chairman
B.O'N./J.C.