Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94437 Case Number: LCR14576 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: DAVID SEMPLE AND ASSOCIATES - and - A WORKER |
Alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
Recommendation:
Having considered the legal points raised by the Solicitor for the
respondents, the Court is satisfied that it has jurisdiction to
deal with the claim.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Court has
concluded that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. The Court is
also of the view that reinstatement is not a realistic option and,
accordingly, recommends payment of #2,500 as compensation.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94437 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14576
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
DAVID SEMPLE AND ASSOCIATES
(REPRESENTED BY MATHESON ORMSBY AND PRENTICE)
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company is a firm of consulting engineers, involved
in litigation engineering and employing 7 staff. The
worker was employed in September, 1993, as Secretary/
Administrator. The worker was dismissed without warning
at 5 p.m. on 15th June, 1994. The worker had not
received any warnings or indications that the Company
was in any way dissatisfied with her performance. She
was informed by her employer that it would be dangerous
for him to give her a reason for her dismissal.
2. The claim for alleged unfair dismissal was referred to
the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969 on 12th August, 1994. A Labour
Court investigation took place on 30th September, 1994.
The Company's written submission to the Court questioned
the Court's jurisdiction to investigate the alleged
unfair dismissal and was presented to the Court by the
Company's solicitor who had no other instructions as to
the facts of the case. No other representative of the
Company attended the Court.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the legal points raised by the Solicitor for the
respondents, the Court is satisfied that it has jurisdiction to
deal with the claim.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Court has
concluded that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. The Court is
also of the view that reinstatement is not a realistic option and,
accordingly, recommends payment of #2,500 as compensation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
12th October, 1994 Evelyn Owens
J.F./M.M. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.