Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92779 Case Number: LCR13947 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: CAVISTONS - and - A WORKER |
Claim by the worker that she was unfairly dismissed.
Recommendation:
7. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is of the opinion that particularly in the light of her very
satisfactory service to the Company the worker was very badly
treated in the manner in which she was notified of her dismissal.
In the circumstances the Court recommends that she be paid, in
addition to the notice already paid to her, a sum equal to a
further 3 weeks pay.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92779 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13947
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: CAVISTONS
(REPRESENTED BY MILEY AND MILEY SOLICITORS)
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the worker that she was unfairly dismissed.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker commenced employment as a chef with the Company on
9th March, 1992. The worker's duties involved preparing
food-stuffs for the kitchen of a delicatessen shop and preparing
orders for outside contracts (details supplied to the Court). The
worker worked a forty hour week and when necessary she worked
beyond the agreed finishing time of 6.30 p.m.
3. The worker went on holidays on the last two weeks of
September, 1992 (seven and a half days paid leave plus two and a
half days unpaid leave with the agreement of her employer). On
her return, the worker was informed that her employment was
terminated. She received one week's pay in lieu of notice and her
P.45.
4. The worker claimed that her dismissal was unfair. The Company
rejected the claim. The worker referred the dispute to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation under Section 20(1) of
the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took
place on 28th January, 1993. The worker agreed to be bound by the
Court's recommendation.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The worker carried out her duties in a conscientious and
efficient manner. She never received any complaints from
either management or customers regarding her work.
2. The worker received no notice or indication of her
dismissal. In view of her work performance and the good
rapport she enjoyed with both colleagues and customers news
of her dismissal came as a complete shock to her.
3. The worker was subsequently informed that the reason for
her dismissal was because anticipated sales of its savoury
products did not materialise and that she was too qualified
for the Company's requirements. However, there was work
available in the shop and the option of working in the shop
was never discussed with the worker.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The worker was employed to produce savoury products for
sale in the Company's own shop and for supply to other
wholesale outlets. The expansion which was anticipated did
not materialise and the Company was left with no option but to
dismiss the worker.
2. A less qualified cook has since been employed to help
existing management to run the kitchen. He spends the
majority of his time on menial tasks, a position to which the
worker concerned would be totally unsuitable in view of her
qualifications.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is of the opinion that particularly in the light of her very
satisfactory service to the Company the worker was very badly
treated in the manner in which she was notified of her dismissal.
In the circumstances the Court recommends that she be paid, in
addition to the notice already paid to her, a sum equal to a
further 3 weeks pay.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
____________________
8th February, 1993 Deputy Chairman.
M.D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Daughen, Court Secretary.