Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93181 Case Number: LCR14059 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: CARIMA LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties and noting
the conflict of evidence with regard to the submission of medical
evidence the Court has come to the conclusion that there was a
breakdown in communication between the parties. The Court also
notes that the worker has received a satisfactory reference which
deals adequately with her reputation.
In the light of the manner in which she was dismissed the Court
considers that the Company should pay her a sum of #100.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93181 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14059
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: CARIMA LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company owns a small supermarket and employs approximately
10 people. The worker concerned commenced employment with the
Company on 18th September, 1991, as a till operator. The worker
was absent on 26th September, 1991 and when she reported for work
at 5.40 p.m. on 27th September, 1991, she was informed that
another employee had been contacted to work the shift and as there
was no work for her she was sent home. Her employment was
terminated on 1st October, 1991. The Company claims that the
worker's job performance was unsatisfactory and that her failure
to report for work on 26th September, 1991, and her failure to
contact management until 5.40 p.m. on 27th September, 1991 was not
acceptable. An invitation to attend a Rights Commissioner's
investigation in January, 1992, was declined by the Company.
The worker referred the matter to the Labour Court on 18th March,
1993 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 20th April, 1993.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. On 26th September, 1991 the worker concerned was removed
to hospital by ambulance at 2.45 p.m. and following treatment
was discharged at 9.23 p.m. It was not possible under the
circumstances to inform management of her illness.
2. When the worker reported for work on 27th September, 1991,
she submitted a medical certificate to the assistant manager.
3. During the period of her employment the worker concerned
received no complaints from management in relation to her
work.
4. In a previous employment the worker concerned had 2 years
experience dealing with cash. She has been treated unfairly
by management and has not been given the 3 months period of
employment on probation promised when recruited.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker concerned was recruited as an experienced till
assistant. Management found her work to be slow and
inaccurate, requiring more than the normal supervision needed
by new recruits.
2. The worker failed to report for work on 26th September,
1991. She failed to contact management and no medical
certification was received in relation to her absence.
3. At interview, it is stressed that employees report for
work when rostered or ring in advance if possible if they
cannot attend. During probation, rosters are arranged in
advance so that new employees gain maximum experience to
different trading conditions. Failure to report for work
during training without adequate notification, is simply not
acceptable.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties and noting
the conflict of evidence with regard to the submission of medical
evidence the Court has come to the conclusion that there was a
breakdown in communication between the parties. The Court also
notes that the worker has received a satisfactory reference which
deals adequately with her reputation.
In the light of the manner in which she was dismissed the Court
considers that the Company should pay her a sum of #100.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
______________________
28th April, 1993. Deputy Chairman
F.B./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.