Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92501 Case Number: LCR13771 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: CLAUS MICHEL LIMITED - and - IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION |
Dispute concerning the manner of dismissal of a worker.
Recommendation:
8. The Court is satisfied that the Employer in this case is
Claus Michel Limited and accordingly they must carry
responsibility for any payment which may be awarded to the worker
herein concerned.
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court is of
the view that the claimant was treated unfairly and accordingly
the Court recommends that she be paid a sum of #2,000 as
compensation.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92501 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13771
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: CLAUS MICHEL LIMITED
AND
IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the manner of dismissal of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker commenced employment with the Company on 9th July,
1990. The Company has a concession from Brown Thomas Limited to
market its cosmetic products within the Brown Thomas shop.
3. The worker was engaged to promote and sell a particular
product. She was paid monthly plus commission. For the first
year of her employment her wages were paid 50/50 between the
Company and Brown Thomas Ltd. At the end of the first year the
Company took responsibility for the payment of her entire wages.
4. On 23rd June, 1992 the worker received notice that her
employment was to terminate on 3rd July, 1992. The Union claimed
compensation of #3,000 on the basis that, had her employment
lasted until 9th July, 1992, she would have been entitled to a
statutory redundancy lump sum payment plus the Brown Thomas
redundancy formula and that, as she was paid monthly, she should
have received a month's notice. (All workers employed by
concession companies are entitled to the same conditions as Brown
Thomas staff). The Company rejected the claim.
5. The Union referred the dispute to a Rights Commissioner. The
Company declined an invitation to attend a Rights Commissioner's
investigation. The Union then referred the dispute to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation under Section 20(1) of
the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Court hearing took place on
15th September, 1992. The Union agreed to be bound by the Court's
recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The worker was treated unfairly in the way her
employment was terminated. Had she been employed for another
week she would have been entitled to a statutory redundancy
lump sum plus the Brown Thomas redundancy formula (Details
supplied to the Court).
2. The worker should have received a month's notice as she
was paid monthly which is normal in the case of such workers.
3. The worker's letter of dismissal indicated that the
worker was responsible for poor sales. This is not correct
and is unfair. The Company did very little promotion of its
product.
4. The worker has many years experience in the cosmetics
business and holds excellent references from previous
employers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The worker's employment was terminated because of poor
sales of the Company's product (Details supplied to the
Court).
2. The Company had no alternative but to terminate the
worker's employment as it received a direction from Brown
Thomas to discontinue that particular product.
RECOMMENDATION:
8. The Court is satisfied that the Employer in this case is
Claus Michel Limited and accordingly they must carry
responsibility for any payment which may be awarded to the worker
herein concerned.
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court is of
the view that the claimant was treated unfairly and accordingly
the Court recommends that she be paid a sum of #2,000 as
compensation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
5th October, 1992 Evelyn Owens
M.D./M.H. ____________________________________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Daughen, Court Secretary.