Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93654 Case Number: LCR14325 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: O'CAROLAN CLOTHING LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions from the parties and in
particular taking into account the fact that the claimant resigned
her previous employment the Court is of the view that she is
entitled to compensation.
The Court accordingly recommends that a sum of #500 be paid to
her.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93654 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14325
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
O'CAROLAN CLOTHING LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY MARCUS A. LYNCH & SON SOLICITORS)
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The worker concerned commenced employment with the
Company on 13th August, 1993 as a machinist. Her employment
was terminated on 23rd September, 1993. The Company claims
that the worker's work performance during the course of her
employment was unsatisfactory. The worker rejected the
claim.
2. The worker referred the dispute to the Labour Court for
investigation under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's
recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on 14th
January, 1994.
Worker's Arguments:
3. 1. Prior to commencing her employment on 13th August, 1993
the worker concerned spent four days working for the Company.
2. During these four days the worker received no complaints
from management in relation to her work. Management were
anxious that the worker commenced her employment as soon as
possible.
3. The worker has eight years experience in the clothing
industry and resigned from permanent employment to take up
the company's job offer.
4. The worker has been unfairly treated by the company and
should be compensated for the loss of her employment.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was employed on a trial basis for a period of
approximately 12 weeks.
2. The worker received warnings on a number of occasions in
relation to her work performance.
3. The worker was dismissed because she was not capable of
doing the work she was employed to do. Despite a number of
warnings her work did not improve.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties and in
particular taking into account the fact that the claimant resigned
her previous employment the Court is of the view that she is
entitled to compensation.
The Court accordingly recommends that a sum of #500 be paid to
her.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
27th January, 1994 Evelyn Owens
F.B./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.