Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93194 Case Number: LCR14159 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: ST JOSEPH'S NURSING HOME - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Alleged unfair dismissals.
Recommendation:
5. The employer in this case chose not to attend the Court but to
provide a statement of the circumstances of the dispute.
This statement was considered by the Court together with the oral
and written submissions of the complainants.
The Court in view of the non attendance of the Company was given
no opportunity to question the Company on its statement nor were
the complainants afforded this facility.
In all the circumstances, the Court finds that the claimants in
this case were treated in a manner which would be considered
unacceptable by any responsible employer.
The Court finds that the employees concerned were unfairly
dismissed. It is the view of the Court that given the situation
described, the Court is satisfied that reinstatement in this case
is not an option.
Accordingly the Court recommends that the claimants dismissed be
paid an additional four weeks pay for the distress caused and the
loss of their employment.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93194 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14159
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: ST JOSEPH'S NURSING HOME
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged unfair dismissals.
BACKGROUND:
2. In August, 1992, the four non-nursing staff employed by the
Organisation, joined the Union. In the period September/November,
1992, discussions took place between the Organisation represented
by the then Federation of Irish Employers (F.I.E.) and the Union
concerning the pay and conditions of employment, of the workers
concerned. Following discussions on 3rd November, 1992, a number
of issues were agreed including agreement, in principle, on the
staffing requirement at the Home.
On 22nd November, 1992, one of the workers concerned was
dismissed. On 17th December, 1992, a second worker was dismissed.
The Union served strike notice on the Home which was deferred over
the Christmas period and was further deferred pending a
conciliation conference at the Labour Relations Commission on 20th
January, 1993. Prior to the conciliation conference the F.I.E.
informed the Union that it no longer represented the Organisation.
On 18th January, 1993, a third worker was dismissed. The Union
claims that the workers were dismissed because they joined the
Union.
The Union referred the matter to the Labour Court under Section
20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound
by the Court's recommendation. The Labour Court hearing took
place on 13th May, 1993. The Organisation informed the Court by
letter dated 3rd May, 1993 that it would not be represented at the
hearing.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The conditions under which the workers were employed were
unacceptable.
2. The workers were supervised by a number of people who
frequently countermanded each other and changed orders on a
regular basis.
3. In the period immediately after the workers joining the
Union they were subjected to various forms of harassment by
the management.
4. The fourth worker employed by the Organisation who joined
the Union resigned because she could not take the pressure
from management.
5. Workers have the right to join a Union without suffering
the loss of their jobs.
6. The workers concerned live in a small community and the
circumstances in which they were dismissed may make it
impossible for them to get employment in the future.
7. The workers have lost financially, have failed to find
alternative employment and have suffered severe upset and loss
of dignity because of the unfair treatment meted out to them
by the management of the Organisation.
8. The workers concerned were dismissed because they joined
the Union and should be compensated for the financial loss and
the upset and embarrassment they have endured.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The employer in this case chose not to attend the Court but to
provide a statement of the circumstances of the dispute.
This statement was considered by the Court together with the oral
and written submissions of the complainants.
The Court in view of the non attendance of the Company was given
no opportunity to question the Company on its statement nor were
the complainants afforded this facility.
In all the circumstances, the Court finds that the claimants in
this case were treated in a manner which would be considered
unacceptable by any responsible employer.
The Court finds that the employees concerned were unfairly
dismissed. It is the view of the Court that given the situation
described, the Court is satisfied that reinstatement in this case
is not an option.
Accordingly the Court recommends that the claimants dismissed be
paid an additional four weeks pay for the distress caused and the
loss of their employment.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
_____________________
29th July, 1993. Deputy Chairman
F.B./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.