Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93144 Case Number: LCR14014 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: ABRAKEBABRA LIMITED - and - A WORKER;R. MCGUINNESS, SOLICITOR |
Alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties and the oral
evidence presented at the hearing the Court is of the view that
the claimant's dismissal arose more from the Company's
anticipation of difficulties in the future than from his actual
attendance record. In the circumstances the Court does not
consider that the dismissal was fair and reasonable. Accordingly
the Court recommends that the Company pay the claimant a sum of
#300 in full settlement of his claim.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93144 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14014
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: ABRAKEBABRA LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
and
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY R. McGUINNESS, SOLICITOR)
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned employment at the Company's Donnybrook
Branch on the 23rd April, 1992. He was employed as a general
operative and worked 20 hours per week. He was dismissed on the
27th October, 1992. He claimed that his dismissal was unfair and
referred the issue to a Rights Commissioner for investigation.
The Company objected to such an investigation. Subsequently 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
16th March, 1993.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. On the 16th October, 1992, the worker was advised that his
baby son (who suffers from a serious illness) was sick. He
asked for, and was granted, permission by the Manager to leave
the employment to take his son to hospital. He took a day's
sick leave on the 18th October. (The day his son underwent an
operation).
2. The worker accepts that he had a number of sick absences
during the period of his employment. On most occasions he
arranged for cover to be provided by a colleague. This
practice was accepted by Management and the Company was not at
a loss.
3. In late October, when questioned by Management as to
whether he has prepared to give an undertaking that he would
not take time off, he stated that he could not give such an
undertaking, given the nature and seriousness of his son's
illness. However, he did not anticipate that he would be
absent from work very often.
4. He was arbitrarily dismissed in an unfair and unjust
manner. He received one week's notice.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker concerned had a considerable amount of sick
leave during the period of his employment. In the period from
1st May to 5th July, 1992 he had seven days sick leave
involving four absences. His attendance record improved in
July and August but deteriorated in September and October,
1992. He failed to attend work on 7th September despite
confirming that he would attend. On Thursday 10th September
he left his shift at 1.00 a.m. although rostered until 5 a.m.
On October 16th he again left his shift at 2.30 a.m. and
reported sick on 18th October.
2. It is essential that the Company's employees attend work
regularly as otherwise it is very difficult to operate the
business successfully. Management subsequently endeavoured to
get a commitment from the worker about an improvement in his
future attendance. When this undertaking was not forthcoming
the Company had no alternative but to dismiss the worker.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties and the oral
evidence presented at the hearing the Court is of the view that
the claimant's dismissal arose more from the Company's
anticipation of difficulties in the future than from his actual
attendance record. In the circumstances the Court does not
consider that the dismissal was fair and reasonable. Accordingly
the Court recommends that the Company pay the claimant a sum of
#300 in full settlement of his claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
__________________
26th March, 1993 Chairman.
T.O'D./J.C.
NOTE
ENQUIRIES CONCERNING THIS RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO
MR. TOM O'DEA, COURT SECRETARY.