Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93454 Case Number: AD9374 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: COUGHLANS BAKERY - and - A WORKER |
Appeal by both parties against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. B.C. 55/93 concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court
has no hesitation in upholding the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation. Accordingly the Company should make the
recommended payment to the claimant without further delay. The
Company should also furnish the claimant with a satisfactory work
reference.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93454 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD7493
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: COUGHLANS BAKERY
(REPRESENTED BY DENIS McSWEENEY SOLICITORS)
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by both parties against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. B.C. 55/93 concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company on
10th September, 1992 as a shop assistant. Her employment was
terminated on 21st January, 1993. The worker claims that she was
unfairly dismissed. The Company rejected the claim.
The worker referred the matter to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. The Rights Commissioner on 24th
June, 1993, recommended as follows:
"In the light of the above I must hold that the worker was
unfairly dismissed from her employment on the date in
question. I do not recommend re-instatement.
My recommendation is that Yolande Kelly trading as Coughlans
Bakery should pay to the worker the sum of #300 and this be
accepted by her in full and final settlement of all claims on
the employer".
The worker was named in the recommendation.
The Rights Commissioner's recommendation was appealed by both
parties to the Labour Court on 30th July, 1993. The Court heard
the appeal on 2nd September, 1993.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker has worked with the public in previous
employments and was never the subject of any complaints.
2. During the course of the worker's employment with the
Company she received no complaints from management in relation
to her work.
3. The accusations made by the management are untrue and have
damaged the reputation of the worker. Complaints made in
relation to the worker were made by friends of the management.
4. The worker has had difficulty in obtaining suitable
employment as a result of her dismissal.
5. The worker has been unfairly treated. During the course
of her employment with the Company she has given good service
and is entitled to a fair and suitable reference from the
Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was engaged on a 3 month trial basis. Her
attitude to her work was unacceptable to management.
2. The worker was warned by management on a number of
occasions in relation to her attitude towards her work.
3. A number of complaints were received from customers
concerning the worker including one of smoking behind the
counter. Health regulations forbid smoking behind the
counter.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court
has no hesitation in upholding the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation. Accordingly the Company should make the
recommended payment to the claimant without further delay. The
Company should also furnish the claimant with a satisfactory work
reference.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
__________________
22nd September, 1993. Chairman.
F.B./J.C.