Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93266 Case Number: LCR14096 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: J.A. HICKEY AND COMPANY LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered all the circumstances of this case and
particularly the probationary period which applied, the Court does
not consider that the claimant was unfairly dismissed.
Accordingly the Court does not consider that the claimant is
entitled to redress.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Keogh Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93266 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14096
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: J.A. HICKEY AND COMPANY LIMITED
(Represented by The Irish Business Employers Confederation)
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the manufacture of childrens
clothing and employs approximately 250 workers. The worker
concerned commenced employment as a printer machine operator on
the 8th September, 1992. She was on a 26 week probationary
period. Her employment terminated on the 25th January, 1993. She
claimed that she was unfairly dismissed and referred the issue to
a Rights Commissioner for investigation. The Company objected to
such an investigation. On the 21st April, 1993 the worker
referred the dispute to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of
the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the
Court's recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the 20th May,
1993.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker reported for duty on Thursday 21st January.
She was feeling unwell, suffering from a heavy cold.
Management sent her home. She resumed work on Monday 25th
January. The worker was given one week's notice. She was not
given a valid reason for the Company's action. It was stated
that she did not appear well and must have been taking
tablets. The worker was fit for duty and not on medication.
This fact can be verified by her doctor. She was arbitrarily
and unfairly dismissed.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Since the commencement of her employment Management had
reason to speak to the worker on several occasions regarding
the quality of her work and application to her duties. She
seemed disinterested in her work and was a poor time-keeper.
On the Thursday in question Management spoke to the worker
about a serious quality problem regarding a large number of
garments which were her responsibility. Subsequently the
worker advised Management that she was unwell. She was given
permission to go home.
2. The worker returned on Monday 25th January. She was
spoken to again by management regarding the quality problem.
As the worker was nearing the end of her probation she was
given a further week to improve her performance. She then
left the premises of her own volition and returned later in
the week to collect her form P.45. She was not dismissed but
resigned from the employment.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered all the circumstances of this case and
particularly the probationary period which applied, the Court does
not consider that the claimant was unfairly dismissed.
Accordingly the Court does not consider that the claimant is
entitled to redress.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
31st May, 1993 ----------------
T O'D/U.S. Chairman