Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD928 Case Number: AD92131 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: QUEEN'S HOTEL - and - A WORKER |
Appeal by the worker against Rights Commissioner's recommendation C.W. 364/91 concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, and having noted the Company advisor's agreement to
advise his client to provide a letter as recommended by the Rights
Commissioner, decides that in these circumstances the
Commissioner's recommendation as to the amount of compensation
should stand.
The Court is reserving its right to amend or revise this decision
in the event of a failure by the Company to issue a letter as
recommended.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD928 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD13192
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: QUEEN'S HOTEL
(REPRESENTED BY HOULIHANS SOLICITORS)
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the worker against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation C.W. 364/91 concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment as a receptionist at
the hotel on the 1st July, 1991. She did not receive a written
contract of employment. She was dismissed on the 4th July, 1991.
She claimed that her dismissal was unfair and referred the issue
to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. In December, 1991 the
Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation as follows:
"I recommend that the Hotel offers and the worker accepts the
sum of £500 and a letter acceptable to the worker".
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation).
The worker rejected the recommendation and on the 2nd January,
1992 appealed it to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court investigated the
dispute in Limerick on the 28th January, 1992.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker concerned accepted the position at the Queens
Hotel in preference to another post which she had been offered
at the same time (details supplied to the Court). She
commenced employment on Monday 1st July and worked from 8 a.m.
to 5 p.m. she worked Tuesday 9 - 6 p.m. was off on Wednesday
and was working from 4 p.m. to 1 a.m. on Thursday. At
approximately 12.15 a.m. she was called into the office by
Management and was dismissed on the grounds that she was the
niece of the owner of a competitor hotel (details supplied to
the Court). The worker was astonished at this decision. She
had been given the job on her own merits having been
successful at an interview and could not understand the
decision to dismiss her purely because of this relationship.
There were no complaints from the Employer about the worker's
efficiency or competence at her job. The worker felt very
humiliated because of how she was treated. The employer,
subsequent to the Rights Commissioner's hearing, stated that
the worker was unsuitable for the post of receptionist. The
worker asked the employer for a letter explaining the reasons
for her dismissal in order that she could use it at subsequent
interviews. The employer refused saying that she had already
explained the reason and there was no need to put it in
writing. The worker has attended numerous interviews in
recent times but has not been successful in obtaining
employment.
2. The worker is appealing the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation because of the negative response from the
employer concerning a letter explaining the reason for her
dismissal and because of no suitable apology. She is claiming
compensation for loss of earnings since 4th July, 1991. The
worker feels that the amount awarded by the Rights
Commissioner does not adequately reflect her loss.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS;
4. The Employer agreed to accept the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation and is prepared to issue the worker with a
letter explaining the exact reason for her dismissal i.e. that
she was related to the owner of a competitor hotel. Had she
revealed at interview that she was related to a competitor the
Employer would not have hired the worker as she felt there was
a lack of trust with regard to the referral of new business.
The Employer has taken no action on the Rights Commissioners
recommendation since the worker appealed it and is now
awaiting the outcome of the Labour Court hearing.
DECISION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, and having noted the Company advisor's agreement to
advise his client to provide a letter as recommended by the Rights
Commissioner, decides that in these circumstances the
Commissioner's recommendation as to the amount of compensation
should stand.
The Court is reserving its right to amend or revise this decision
in the event of a failure by the Company to issue a letter as
recommended.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_______________________
20th February, 1992. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.