Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91416 Case Number: LCR13410 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: MS. ERMA CAFOLLA - and - A WORKER |
Claim by a worker that she was unfairly dismissed.
Recommendation:
5. In the unusual circumstances of this case and taking into
account the fact that the dismissal of the worker arose initially
from the suspension of the employer, the Court does not recommend
re-instatement of the claimant. The Court however accepts that
she has suffered distress arising from the incidents outlined and
having regard, in particular to the fact that, as acknowledged by
the employer, no evidence could be presented which would cast any
doubt on the honesty of the worker, the Court recommends that she
be paid a sum of £150 as compensation.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91416 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13410
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: MS. ERMA CAFOLLA
(REPRESENTED BY THE ORGANISATION OF IRISH SELF-EMPLOYED)
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by a worker that she was unfairly dismissed.
BACKGROUND:
2. On 20th September, 1989 the employer was appointed temporary
postmistress at a post office in Cabra, Dublin 7. Three workers
were employed there at that time. Some time after her appointment
substantial discrepancies occurred in the post office accounts and
the employer had to make good the shortages before she was
appointed as a permanent postmistress on 1st February, 1990.
Subsequently further discrepancies in the post office accounts
arose and in April, 1990 the employer introduced new accounting
methods which reduced the discrepancies. In June, 1990 one of the
workers left and the worker concerned with the dispute was
employed as a trainee post office assistant. The new method of
accounting had to be suspended at the commencement of her
training. This resulted in further discrepancies. The employer
notified An Post of the situation. On 12th February, 1991 An Post
carried out an audit at the post office and discovered a
substantial discrepancy in accounts. The employer was suspended
pending an investigation by An Post and the three workers lost
their jobs as there was no work available for the staff.
Following the investigation the employer was re-instated on 2nd
April, 1991. None of the staff (including the worker concerned)
were re-employed. The worker claims that she was unfairly
dismissed. The employer rejects the claim. The worker referred
the matter to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Court hearing took place on 2nd
September, 1991. Prior to the hearing the worker agreed to be
bound by the Recommendation of the Court.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Following the suspension of the postmistress the post
office was managed by An Post. The worker did not receive
any correspondence from the postmistress (her employer) until
22nd March, 1991 when she received a letter containing her
P.45 and a cheque for £98.80 (pay in lieu of notice and one
week's holiday pay). The worker responded by letter stating
that she accepted her P.45 pending her re-instatement when the
postmistress resumed duty in the post office.
2. When the employer was re-instated the worker found that
new staff were employed. When inquiries were made on behalf
of the worker the employer indicated that a letter explaining
the situation would be forwarded to the worker. The worker
did not receive a letter of explanation. On 9th April, 1991
the worker wrote to the employer requesting the reasons for
her dismissal but she received no reply.
3. Following the investigation by An Post the worker was
cleared of any suggestion that she might have been responsible
for discrepancies in the post office accounts. She should
have been re-instated when the employer's suspension was
lifted. The worker was not re-employed and she received no
explanation from her employer. She was therefore unfairly
dismissed.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. When discrepancies occurred in the post office accounts
staff were warned that if they continued the employer would
have to forfeit her contract with An Post. The employer made
good the deficit in order to keep the contract but was
suspended following an audit by An Post on 12th February,
1991. On 12th March the employer wrote to the worker
informing her that her employment had been terminated because
of the employer's suspension as postmistress.
2. The employer accepts that there is no evidence that the
worker concerned was responsible for discrepancies in the post
office accounts. However, in order to get re-instated the
employer had to employ new experienced staff who were approved
by An Post. The employer terminated the employment of the
worker in March, 1991 and it is not possible to re-employ her.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. In the unusual circumstances of this case and taking into
account the fact that the dismissal of the worker arose initially
from the suspension of the employer, the Court does not recommend
re-instatement of the claimant. The Court however accepts that
she has suffered distress arising from the incidents outlined and
having regard, in particular to the fact that, as acknowledged by
the employer, no evidence could be presented which would cast any
doubt on the honesty of the worker, the Court recommends that she
be paid a sum of £150 as compensation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
25th September, 1991 _______________
A.S./J.C. Deputy Chairman.