Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93447 Case Number: AD9376 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: DUBLIN BOX COMPANY LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. B.C. 90/93.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the oral and written submissions
of the parties, confirms the recommendation of the Rights
Commissioner.
The Court so decides.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93447 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD7693
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: DUBLIN BOX COMPANY LIMITED
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. B.C. 90/93.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker commenced employment with the Company on the 28th
of August, 1992. Her duties consisted mainly of gluing satin
inserts to cardboard platforms. From the 11th to the 25th of
January, 1993 the worker was on certified sick-leave. During this
period (on the 22nd of January) she received notification of the
termination of her employment. She contends that she was
wrongfully dismissed and she referred the dispute to a Rights
Commissioner for investigation. The dispute was investigated on
the 8th of June, 1993. The Rights Commissioner found that the
worker had performed her duties satisfactorily and that she
believed that her dismissal may have been related to her absence
from work through illness. The Company denied that her dismissal
was related to her absence and gave a 'lack of suitable work' as
the reason for it.
The Rights Commissioner found that the worker was unfairly
selected for redundancy and recommended that the Company should
pay her the sum of #200 as compensation.
The worker appealed the Recommendation to the Labour on the 28th
of July, 1993. The Court investigated the appeal on the 27th of
August, 1993.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. When she commenced her period of sick-leave, the worker
was informed by management that her position with the Company
would be safe.
2. Part-time workers who commenced employment after the
worker were kept on after she was dismissed.
3. After the worker was dismissed other full-time staff were
taken on by the Company.
4. She satisfactorily carried out a variety of duties with
the Company and she was not confined to any one task.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was engaged mainly in a section that produced
fancy boxes for the Christmas market. In the post-Christmas
period, demand dropped for these fancy boxes. As there was no
prospect of sufficient suitable work in the foreseeable future
for the worker, the Company decided to terminate her
employment.
2. A small subsequent up-turn in demand for the Company's
produce from that section was adequately serviced by another
employee who had been on sick-leave from the 11th of January
to the 8th of March, 1993.
3. Part-time workers taken on after the worker's dismissal
had been employed by the Company 3 years and 5 years
previously, respectively.
DECISION:
5. The Court, having considered the oral and written submissions
of the parties, confirms the recommendation of the Rights
Commissioner.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
__________________
28th September, 1993. Deputy Chairman
M.K./J.C.