Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95287 Case Number: LCR14851 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: JIMMY ENNIS ENGINEERING LIMITED (STRONGS, SOLICITORS) - and - A WORKER;WALKER & CO. SOLICITORS |
Alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
The Court, having considered the written and verbal submissions of
the parties, takes the view that the claimant's application to her
job did not come into dispute until the events outlined in
relation to Friday, 17th February, 1995.
Whilst the claims of the management might have substance had the
claimant been challenged on them prior to the dismissal, the Court
does not believe that they are substantive to the case before it.
The management argued that the claimant's use of the Company's
property without their permission to type out C.V.s and other
articles, and that it took precedence over an urgent quote to a
customer, was the reason for her dismissal.
The Court established that the urgent quote referred to had in
fact been sent in time, on the 20th February, 1995, and the fact
that the customer did not receive it was not her fault.
Therefore, the Court considers that she was unfairly dismissed.
As her only redress claimed is for a suitable reference, the Court
recommends that it be furnished without any further delay.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95287 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14851
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
JIMMY ENNIS ENGINEERING LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY STRONGS, SOLICITORS)
AND
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY WALKER & CO. SOLICITORS)
SUBJECT:
Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
The worker commenced employment with the Company on 3rd
October, 1994 on a part-time basis (8.30 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.).
On 3rd January, 1995, her working hours were extended (9.00
a.m. to 5.00 p.m.). Her wages were #160.00 per week for the
longer hours.
There were three workers employed in the office - a general
manager, his wife and the worker concerned. The worker was
dismissed on 20th February, 1995. The Company claims that
there was a number of reasons for the dismissal, including
typing a C.V. for a friend on Company equipment during
working hours. The worker claims that she was unfairly
dismissed.
The dispute was referred by the worker to the Labour Court
under Section 20(1), of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
A Labour Court hearing took place on 17th July, 1995.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The worker was employed on a two week trial. There was no
written contract and no stipulation regarding the use of
office equipment. The worker typed the C.V. before office
hours and during her lunch break.
2. There were no complaints about the worker's performance of
her duties. She was asked to work full time in January,
1995. She worked alone in the office when the general
manager and his wife were on holidays. The worker performed
a wide range of duties, including looking after petty cash,
although this was not her responsibility.
3. The only reason given by the Company for the dismissal, on
the day the worker was dismissed, was the typing of the C.V.
The worker sought, in writing, reasons for her dismissal.
The Company failed to furnish a reason.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The worker typed the C.V. during working hours. As a result
she delayed in sending an important fax to a customer which
she had been informed was urgent. She had typed a number of
other C.V.'s on previous occasions.
2. The worker was employed on a six month trial basis. She was
informed of her duties, which included post, photocopying and
petty cash. The worker opened confidential post, complained
about doing photocopying and was generally unsatisfactory in
performing her duties.
3. The Company regarded the typing of the C.V. as a breach of
trust. The worker was dismissed within her six month
probation period.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered the written and verbal submissions of
the parties, takes the view that the claimant's application to her
job did not come into dispute until the events outlined in
relation to Friday, 17th February, 1995.
Whilst the claims of the management might have substance had the
claimant been challenged on them prior to the dismissal, the Court
does not believe that they are substantive to the case before it.
The management argued that the claimant's use of the Company's
property without their permission to type out C.V.s and other
articles, and that it took precedence over an urgent quote to a
customer, was the reason for her dismissal.
The Court established that the urgent quote referred to had in
fact been sent in time, on the 20th February, 1995, and the fact
that the customer did not receive it was not her fault.
Therefore, the Court considers that she was unfairly dismissed.
As her only redress claimed is for a suitable reference, the Court
recommends that it be furnished without any further delay.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
2nd August, 1995 Finbarr Flood
C.O.N./A.K. ----------------
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Ciaran O' Neill, Court Secretary.