Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92409 Case Number: AD92197 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: INCORPORATED NEWS - and - A WORKER |
Appeal by the worker against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. CW137/92 concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
The Court notes that the Employer did not respond to the Court's
invitation to attend the hearing.
Having considered the submission from the appellant the Court is
of the view that the appeal is well founded and should be upheld.
The court further decides that the amount of compensation be
increased to #200.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92/409 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD19792
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: INCORPORATED NEWS
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the worker against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. CW137/92 concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed as a shop assistant for approximately
two months up to 6th April, 1991. The worker was dismissed from
her employment on the grounds that she was not suitable. The
worker considered that she was unfairly dismissed and referred the
issue to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and
recommendation. The Rights Commissioner investigated the dispute
on 27th April, 1992 and issued the following findings and
recommendation dated 11th June, 1992:
"The worker was employed for a little over two months and
could be considered to be still on probation, although there
was no written contract or letter of appointment. I am not
convinced that there was any proper procedure for handling
cash on take-over, or for checking receipts. I do not
consider that there is any slur on the character of the
worker, I believe and that the only reason for dismissal was
her lack of suitability. At the same time it is clear that
she was not given a reasonable opportunity to defend herself
before dismissal. There is no obligation on Mr. Doyle to
issue a written reference. I note that he undertakes that he
will not verbally jeopardise the chances of the worker
obtaining alternative employment.
I recommend that Mr. Doyle offers and the worker accepts the
sum of #160 in full and final settlement of this dispute and
in consideration of any outstanding statutory payments due to
her."
The worker was referred to by name in the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation.
3. The worker appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation
to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on 13th August,
1992. The Company did not attend or was not represented at the
Court hearing.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker has two years experience as a shop assistant.
She was suitable for the job and considers her dismissal to
be unfair.
2. The worker's employer never spoke to her about her work
performance. She carried out her duties in accordance with
stated procedures. Under the circumstances she considers the
amount of compensation recommended by the Rights Commissioner
to be insufficient.
DECISION:
The Court notes that the Employer did not respond to the Court's
invitation to attend the hearing.
Having considered the submission from the appellant the Court is
of the view that the appeal is well founded and should be upheld.
The court further decides that the amount of compensation be
increased to #200.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
7th September, 1992 _____________________________________
M.D./M.H.
Deputy Chairman