Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92692 Case Number: LCR13921 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: IMPLEMENTORS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Dispute concerning the alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
Recommendation:
6. Having considered the submissions made by the parties it
appears to the Court that the worker concerned was a victim of a
downturn in the Company's business and lost her employment through
no fault in her work performance or behaviour.
The Court, whilst noting that she was given notice while the terms
of her probation applied, does consider that having regard to her
circumstances she should be awarded a further sum of two weeks
pay. The Court so recommends.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92692 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13921
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: IMPLEMENTORS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is engaged in the computer industry. The worker
was employed from 31st March, 1992 to 31st August, 1992. She was
employed on a 3 month probationary period. The Company informed
the worker at the end her probationary period that it was unable
to offer her a permanent position due to a downturn in business.
It gave her two months notice.
3. The worker considered her dismissal to be unfair and referred
the dispute to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and
recommendation. 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
Labour Court hearing took place on 14th December, 1992. The
worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. A project on which the worker was employed on was
unfinished at the time of her dismissal. A colleague, had her
contract renewed to finish the worker's project and was
subsequently made permanent.
2. The worker was employed to work on the particular project
and left a full-time job to take up employment with the
Company.
3. Both workers have similar qualifications.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Company had to restructure its projects because of a
downturn in the industry. Three workers were made redundant
and five others were contracted to other companies.
2. As a result of the restructuring there was no place in the
Company for the worker because of the level of her experience.
She was not an experienced programmer and would have had to
work with someone experienced. The new team structure did not
allow for this.
3. The Company regretted having to make the worker redundant.
It gave her two months notice and made its administration
facilities available to assist the worker in securing
alternative employment.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. Having considered the submissions made by the parties it
appears to the Court that the worker concerned was a victim of a
downturn in the Company's business and lost her employment through
no fault in her work performance or behaviour.
The Court, whilst noting that she was given notice while the terms
of her probation applied, does consider that having regard to her
circumstances she should be awarded a further sum of two weeks
pay. The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
___________________
15th January, 1993 Deputy Chairman.
M.D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Daughen, Court Secretary.