Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92382 Case Number: LCR13758 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: DRY CLEAN HERE LIMITED - and - A WORKER;IRISH TRADE UNION TRUST |
Dispute concerning alleged unfair dismissal of the worker.
Recommendation:
6. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is satisfied that the worker concerned was dismissed
unfairly. However the Court does not consider that reinstatement
is appropriate in these circumstances and recommends that she be
paid an amount of #250.
The Court is referring the question of holiday pay and other
statutory entitlements to the Department of Labour to investigate
and if necessary initiate action.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92382 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13758
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 to 1990
SECTION 20(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: DRY CLEAN HERE LIMITED
AND
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH TRADE UNION TRUST)
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning alleged unfair dismissal of the worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed by the Company from 6th May, 1991 as
a floor worker and cabinet-operator. Her hours of work were
3.00p.m. to 7.00p.m five days a week. Her hours of work were
subsequently changed to 1.00p.m. to 5.00p.m. as she was required
to operate the steaming cabinet.
3. On Monday, 16th March, 1992 the worker was informed that due
to rationalisation she was being dismissed. She was handed a
cheque in respect of money owed. The worker disagreed with the
reason for her dismissal and disputed the money paid to her as
being insufficient. She referred the dispute to a Rights
Commissioner. The Company declined an invitation to attend a
Rights Commissioner's hearing. 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 14th August, 1992. The worker agreed
to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker's job is still there and held by another
worker who was employed two weeks prior to her dismissal.
2. Management never had any complaints about the worker's
conduct or work performance.
3. The worker did not receive proper notice or holiday
money (details supplied to the Court).
4. The worker considers that she was unfairly dismissed and
asks the Court to recommend that the Company issue her with a
reference and pay outstanding monies due.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Company is small and its business is irregular. As
a consequence the majority of the workforce is temporary and
adjusted according to demand. The worker was dismissed due
to a fall in the Company's business.
2. The worker engaged by the Company prior to the worker's
dismissal was employed to work the night shift.
3. As far as the Company is aware all outstanding monies
owed have been paid. However, the Company will check its
records and if there is money owed to the worker it will be
paid. The Company will also issue a reference.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is satisfied that the worker concerned was dismissed
unfairly. However the Court does not consider that reinstatement
is appropriate in these circumstances and recommends that she be
paid an amount of #250.
The Court is referring the question of holiday pay and other
statutory entitlements to the Department of Labour to investigate
and if necessary initiate action.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
4th September, 1992 John O'Connell
M.D./M.H. --------------------------------
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Daughen, Court Secretary.