Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94385 Case Number: LCR14583 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: COLORMAN - and - A WORKER;PAMELA M. MADIGAN AND COMPANY SOLICITORS |
Dispute concerning an alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
The Court, having considered all of the views of the parties, as
expressed in their oral and written submissions, finds that,
whilst the matter might have been dealt with greater sensitivity,
the Company did not treat the employee concerned unreasonably.
The Court notes that the employee is included in the list of
casuals for employment and recommends that the Company ensures
that, in the event of an upturn in business, he is recalled for
employment in accordance with the normal recall procedures.
The Court notes that the Company undertook to ensure that all
monies due to the employee have been paid.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94385 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14583
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
COLORMAN
AND
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY PAMELA M. MADIGAN AND COMPANY SOLICITORS)
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning an alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company is involved in the printing industry and
employs 151 people permanently with 23 casual workers
engaged as required. The worker was employed as a
general operative on a casual basis on 4th January,
1993. On 22nd August, the worker was injured at work
and was absent until 17th January, 1994 on certified
sick leave.
2. The worker contacted the Company in January, 1994 to say
that he was fit to return to work. He was informed that
there was no work available. The worker had not
received his P45 which the Company claims was sent to
him on 10th October, 1993. The worker was given his P45
on 13th January, 1994, as well as 2 cheques for tax
rebates.
3. The Company advised the worker that there were no
positions available to him at that time but should a
position become available he would be advised
accordingly. At that time the Company had not renewed
17 of its casual workers' contracts and it claimed that
the worker's position on the list was below the number
of casuals the Company required at that time.
4. The worker claimed that he had been unfairly dismissed
and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court under
Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 on
1st July, 1994. The Labour Court investigated the
dispute on 26th September, 1994 (the earliest date
suitable to both parties).
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was dismissed without notice while on
certified sick leave. He did not receive his P45 until
January, 1994. The worker was unfairly dismissed
without the benefit of a fair hearing and in breach of
the terms of the Company/Union Agreement.
2. The procedures followed by the print industry generally
is that if there is no work and a worker is let go, they
are placed on a list and will be re-employed on a first
out first back basis. The worker has never been
recalled to work but is aware of other workers who have
been let go and re-employed on 2 occasions since his
accident in August, 1993.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker's employment was at all times of a temporary
nature and there was never any commitment by the
Company to permanent employment for him or indeed any
other temporary employee. This remains the position.
At the time of the worker's absence, the Company had no
option but to fill the position. When the worker became
available for work all the temporary positions available
were filled.
2. The Company's contracts of temporary employment are
offered in a fair and reasonable manner. Temporary
staff are made aware that their attendance at work is
critical as they are supplementing permanent workers.
The worker's name is on the Company's list of temporary
workers and he will be offered casual employment when
his name on the list is reached.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered all of the views of the parties, as
expressed in their oral and written submissions, finds that,
whilst the matter might have been dealt with greater sensitivity,
the Company did not treat the employee concerned unreasonably.
The Court notes that the employee is included in the list of
casuals for employment and recommends that the Company ensures
that, in the event of an upturn in business, he is recalled for
employment in accordance with the normal recall procedures.
The Court notes that the Company undertook to ensure that all
monies due to the employee have been paid.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
13th October, 1994 Tom McGrath
J.F./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.