Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92179 Case Number: LCR13677 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: TAMHURST LIMITED T/A DISPLAY FORM - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
A dispute concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
The Court, having considered all the aspects of this case as
outlined by the parties in their oral and written submissions,
finds the Company was unfair in the manner in which it effected
the dismissal of the worker concerned.
The Court recommends she be compensated in the amount of #200.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92179 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13677
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: TAMHURST LIMITED t/a DISPLAY FORM
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. A dispute concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was employed as a book-keeper /
receptionist from 1st February, 1991 until her employment was
terminated on 25th September, 1991.
The Company claims that the worker was dismissed for her bad and
unacceptable attendance record. It claims that out of a total
of 23 working weeks, the worker only worked for a total of 13
full weeks. The Company claims that the worker regularly
absented herself from the office without a satisfactory
explanation. The Union contends that the Company at no time
gave the worker a clear reason for her dismissal despite being
pressed by both the worker and the Union to do so. The Union
alleges that the worker was never warned either verbally or in
writing about her attendance. All absences were explained.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court, by the Union under
Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and it
agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. The Court
investigated the dispute on 4th May, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company was wrong in dismissing the worker. On no
occasion was she warned either verbally or in writing about
her attendance. If the Company felt so strongly about the
issue it should have taken the worker aside and spoken to
her about any problem it perceived she had. Dismissal, if
applicable, should only have been a final option.
2. The Company dismissed the worker by calling to her
house, at night, while she was out sick. The reason given
was that things were not working out and it was only at a
subsequent meeting between the Union and the Company that
absenteeism was mentioned. When asked the Company refused
to furnish the Union with the worker's attendance record.
3. All absences were explained by the worker and the
majority were covered by doctor's notes.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is a small company and the worker's role
is essential to the running of the business. Whenever the
worker was absent things were thrown into turmoil.
Eventually the Company had to decide whether it would
continue trying to cover when the worker was absent or
whether she had to be let go and someone else taken on.
2. The worker had been verbally warned about her
absenteeism. After three months when she was being given a
raise both her absenteeism and her typing were mentioned as
problems. The raise was given to her on condition that she
improve. In August, when the worker took time off to have
new windows put in her home, she was told, by phone, that
her lack of attendance was a serious matter.
3. The Union was not shown the worker's records at the
meeting because it was a busy working day. The records
were not to hand and since then have been re-organised more
efficiently.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered all the aspects of this case as
outlined by the parties in their oral and written submissions,
finds the Company was unfair in the manner in which it effected
the dismissal of the worker concerned.
The Court recommends she be compensated in the amount of #200.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
9th June, 1992 _____________________
A.Ni.S./N.Ni.M. Deputy Chairman
NOTE:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
(Ms. Aoibheann Ni Shuilleabhain), Court Secretary.