Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92487 Case Number: AD92206 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: HAMILL BROS LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Appeal by the worker against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. C.W. 121/92 concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
4. The Court, having considered the oral and written submissions
of the claimant, concurs with the Rights Commissioner's view that
she was dismissed unfairly. The Court finds it unacceptable that
the employer should have treated the worker here concerned in such
a cavalier fashion.
The Court notes the employer did not attend the Rights
Commissioner hearing and did not object to such hearing being
held. The employer also did not attend the Court hearing.
The Court considers the remedy recommended by the Rights
Commissioner is appropriate.
To ensure the worker suffers no further hardship and is assisted
to secure employment the Company should issue her with a suitable
reference. They should also pay her the sum of #1,000 in
settlement of this dispute.
The Court so decides.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92487 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD20692
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: HAMILL BROS LIMITED
(TRADING AS THE SELECTION BOX)
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the worker against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. C.W. 121/92 concerning alleged unfair
dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company as
a shop assistant on 12th January, 1992. The worker's employment
was terminated on 6th March, 1992. During the course of her
employment the worker concerned had not been reprimanded or warned
by her employer. The only reason given to the worker for her
dismissal was that Management were reviewing staff. One other
shop assistant had been recruited after the worker concerned
commenced her employment. The worker referred the matter to a
Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On 3rd
June, 1992 the Rights Commissioner recommended as follows:
"I recommend that the Company gives a reference to the worker
which would not hinder or delay her efforts to secure other
employment and that it offers and the worker accepts the sum
of #1,000.00 in settlement of this dispute".
The Rights Commissioner's recommendation was rejected by the
worker who appealed it to the Labour Court on 4th August, 1992.
The Court heard the appeal on 10th September, 1992. The Company
did not attend the hearing.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Prior to her employment with the Company the worker
concerned was in permanent employment.
2. The worker was approached by a director of the Company
with an offer of a job as a shop assistant.
3. The worker resigned from her job to take up the position
offered by the Company.
4. The worker has been treated unfairly by the Management who
had no complaint about her ability to do the job.
DECISION:
4. The Court, having considered the oral and written submissions
of the claimant, concurs with the Rights Commissioner's view that
she was dismissed unfairly. The Court finds it unacceptable that
the employer should have treated the worker here concerned in such
a cavalier fashion.
The Court notes the employer did not attend the Rights
Commissioner hearing and did not object to such hearing being
held. The employer also did not attend the Court hearing.
The Court considers the remedy recommended by the Rights
Commissioner is appropriate.
To ensure the worker suffers no further hardship and is assisted
to secure employment the Company should issue her with a suitable
reference. They should also pay her the sum of #1,000 in
settlement of this dispute.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
____________________
2nd October, 1992 Deputy Chairman.
F.B./J.C.