Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95569 Case Number: LCR14975 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: ARTANE POST OFFICE (Represented by O'CONNOR MOHAN SOLICITORS) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
The Court has fully considered the oral and written submissions of
the parties and finds that no grounds have been put forward
impugning the good name of the claimant.
The Court notes the Company will draft a satisfactory reference
and will submit it to the Court.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Pierce Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95569 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14975
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
ARTANE POST OFFICE
(REPRESENTED BY O'CONNOR MOHAN SOLICITORS)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a worker who commenced employment at
Artane Post Office on the 9th March, 1995. She was initially
employed on a part-time basis and in June, 1995 she was
appointed to a full-time position. On the 3rd July, 1995
during the course of a discussion on the weekly balance which
had not been correctly reconciled on a number of occasions
the Employer asked the worker concerned and her co-worker to
be more careful to avoid making mistakes. In an exchange
with the claimant the Employer commented either staff were
making mistakes or one was 'dipping'. The claimant took
exception and sought an apology. The Employer refused. The
working environment deteriorated and on the 7th July the
worker was dismissed. The Union claimed that her dismissal
was unfair and sought to refer the dispute to a Right
Commissioner for investigation. The employer objected to
such an investigation. Subsequently the Union referred the
dispute to the Labour court under Section 20(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the
Court's recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute
on the 18th November, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In the course of the conversation relating to shortages
the claimant stated that the Employer could also be
making mistakes to which the Employer took exception.
While the working atmosphere deteriorated the worker
concerned performed her duties properly and efficiently
and confined her conversation to matters job-related.
2. On the 7th July as she was leaving work the claimant was
handed her P45 and given her statutory entitlements.
She was dismissed in an unfair and arbitrary fashion.
She seeks a written apology and a written reference.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The employer requested both workers to be more careful
because of the significant shortages recorded in
balances from March to July, 1995 (details supplied to
the Court). The employer did not accuse the claimant of
stealing. However, she became surly, unreasonable and
the tension in the workplace became unbearable. The
Employer had no alternative but to let the claimant go
due to the atmosphere at work.
2. The Employer acted in a fair and reasonable manner. The
claimant was not unfairly dismissed. She received all
her statutory entitlements. The Employer is prepared to
give her a written reference.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has fully considered the oral and written submissions of
the parties and finds that no grounds have been put forward
impugning the good name of the claimant.
The Court notes the Company will draft a satisfactory reference
and will submit it to the Court.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
22nd November, 1995 Tom McGrath
T.O'D./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.