Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91669 Case Number: LCR13536 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: MERSIN LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
5. On the basis of the submissions made by the parties the Court
does not consider that the worker was unfairly treated and does
not therefore recommend that any compensation be paid.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91669 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13536
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: MERSIN LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY ERCUS STEWART S.C.
INSTRUCTED BY KEVANS, SOLICITORS)
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the textile business. The worker
concerned commenced employment on a full time basis with the
Company on the 4th February, 1991. She was dismissed on the 9th
October, 1991. She claimed that her dismissal was unfair and
referred the issue to a Rights Commissioner for investigation.
The Company objected to such an investigation. On the 3rd
December, 1991 the worker referred the dispute to the Labour Court
under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and
agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. The Court
investigated the dispute on the 15th January, 1992.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. When the worker concerned commenced full-time employment
she was informed by the Employer that she would only be let go
from her position as showroom manageress if another worker who
was a sales representative failed at that job. Nothing of
this nature ever happened. In April, 1991 the worker asked
the Employer if it was possible to work a three day week basic
because of a domestic problem. The Employer agreed to this.
From July, 1991 the employer/employee relationship
deteriorated because of his attitude to her (details supplied
to the Court).
2. The worker queried her bonus/commission payments on 3rd
October, 1991 as she could not understand the method of their
calculation. On the 9th of October she was advised by the
Employer that she was being let go and was given one week's
notice. The worker was very annoyed at this decision and left
the premises. She felt that she had been unfairly selected
for dismissal. There were two other staff in the Company
junior in service to the worker concerned who were kept on in
the employment. The worker during the period of her
employment was conscientious at her duties and was never
reprimanded about any aspect of her work. She is seeking
compensation for her unfair dismissal.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. On the 14th April, 1991 the worker concerned approached
Management and requested that her working hours be reduced as
she was unable to work full-time for domestic reasons. In an
effort to facilitate the worker the Company agreed with her
request and reduced her working time to three days a week from
that date. Thereafter she was employed in a part-time
capacity. The Company treated the worker more than fairly
during her period of employment, and gave her various benefits
which she would not be legally entitled to. She never
complained about her treatment while in the Company's
employment.
2. In September, 1991 the Company was going through severe
financial difficulties due to the recession in the industry.
These difficulties continue to the present time. The Company
was forced to make cost cutting decisions and one of these
decisions was a reduction in staff. The Company did not want
to let the worker concerned go but had no alternative. On the
9th October, 1991 the Employer discussed these difficulties
with the worker and informed her there would no work for her
the following week. The worker left the building instantly.
Subsequently Management sent her a letter by hand the
following day (details supplied to the Court). The worker did
not reply to the Company's letter, (in which an offer was made
to put her name on a list should business improve). She
subsequently made a phone call to the Employer stating that
she was referring the dispute to a Rights Commissioner. There
were no employees in the Company with less service than the
worker concerned and she was therefore let go. The Company
acted in a fair and honourable fashion at all times, and the
worker was paid all monies due to her.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. On the basis of the submissions made by the parties the Court
does not consider that the worker was unfairly treated and does
not therefore recommend that any compensation be paid.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
______________________
27th January, 1992. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.