Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92422 Case Number: LCR13790 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: SHAPE IN HAIR LIMITED - and - A WORKER;THE FREE LEGAL ADVICE CENTRES |
Claim by the worker that she was unfairly dismissed from her employment.
Recommendation:
7. The Court, having considered the written and oral submissions
made by the parties at the hearing, has come to the conclusion
that the worker concerned was unfairly dismissed. The Court has
also concluded, however, that, to an extent, the claimant
contributed towards the events which culminated in her dismissal.
In the circumstances the Court recommends that she be paid
compensation to the amount of #125.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92422 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13790
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: SHAPE IN HAIR LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY VINCENT & BEATTY, SOLICITORS)
and
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY THE FREE LEGAL ADVICE CENTRES)
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the worker that she was unfairly dismissed from her
employment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the business of hairdressing and
beauty therapy. It has seven premises in the Dublin area and
employs approximately forty-seven people.
3. The worker was employed on 17th June, 1992 as a second year
apprentice at the Company's Knocklyon, Tallaght, branch. The
worker was dismissed from her employment on 4th November, 1991 due
to her absence from work.
4. The worker referred a claim for alleged unfair dismissal to a
Rights Commissioner. The Company declined an invitation to attend
a Rights Commissioner's investigation. The worker 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 7th September, 1992.
The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The worker completed her probationary period successfully
and subsequently carried out her duties satisfactorily and
without complaint.
2. The worker disputes that her absence record was excessive.
Her absences were as a result of an accident at work, unpaid
leave (she won a holiday and her employer give her unpaid
leave to avail of it) and certified sick leave. It was during
the latter absence that the worker was dismissed.
3. The Company contend that the worker did not attend evening
classes which are arranged on the Company premises as part of
apprenticeship training. The worker's record in this regard
was no better or worse than her colleagues.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The worker was dismissed because of a deterioration in her
attitude towards work, her manner towards clients and her
attendance at work (details supplied to the Court).
2. The worker was warned verbally by her manageress on a
number of occasions regarding these matters.
3. The worker failed to attend training classes which are an
integral part of the Company's training programme.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. The Court, having considered the written and oral submissions
made by the parties at the hearing, has come to the conclusion
that the worker concerned was unfairly dismissed. The Court has
also concluded, however, that, to an extent, the claimant
contributed towards the events which culminated in her dismissal.
In the circumstances the Court recommends that she be paid
compensation to the amount of #125.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
__________________
13th October, 1992. Deputy Chairman.
M.D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Daughen, Court Secretary.