Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95499 Case Number: LCR15001 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: TICKETRON (Represented by MAGUIRE MC ERLEAN) - and - A WORKER |
Alleged unfair dismissal
Recommendation:
The Employer did not attend the Court and the only evidence before
the Court was that supplied by the claimant.
The Employee is adamant that she was not informed that her
employment was only for a number of months. She was given no
contract of employment, did not know she would be sacked within 12
months and was totally unaware of her pending dismissal until the
morning her employer terminated her employment. The only reason
given to her was the risk of having to employ her permanently if
she went over 12 months.
In his letter to the Labour Relations Commission on 10th August,
1995, the employer seems to imply that it was always his intention
to only employ the employees for a period of less than 12 months
although this was never conveyed to this employee. While the
employer in his letter indicates that his legal advice was that he
could operate as he had, the Court believes that in this case the
practise as applied was an abuse of the system and the employee.
Taking into account the information before it, the Court finds
that the dismissal was unfair and recommends that the employer pay
the claimant a once-off payment of £500 and supply her with a
suitable reference in full and final settlement of the case.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Pierce Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95499 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15001
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
TICKETRON
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
Alleged unfair dismissal
BACKGROUND:
The worker concerned commenced employment with Ticketron in
September, 1994 at its ticket office in Tallaght. Her
employment was terminated on 7th July, 1995. The worker
claimed that she had been unfairly dismissed and referred the
matter to the Labour Court on 28th August, 1995 under Section
20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The worker
agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
The Company refused an invitation to attend a Rights
Commissioner's hearing in August, 1995. It informed the
Labour Relations Commission that it had exercised its right
to dismiss the worker as she had not completed 12 months
working in its employment.
A Labour Court hearing took place on 13th November, 1995.
The Employer was not represented at the hearing.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The worker was informed by the Company that the reason for
her dismissal was that it was unable to employ anyone for
longer than 12 months without breaking their continuity of
employment. Management stated that it would consider her for
further employment if a suitable vacancy arose after 9th
September, 1995.
2. The worker received no complaints from management regarding
her work. She had no contract of employment and received no
conditions of her employment in writing.
3. The worker was treated unfairly by management. The manner in
which her dismissal took place caused her great embarrassment
and hardship. The worker was at all times conscientious in
her approach to her work and is concerned that her future job
prospects have been damaged by her unfair dismissal.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Employer did not attend the Court and the only evidence before
the Court was that supplied by the claimant.
The Employee is adamant that she was not informed that her
employment was only for a number of months. She was given no
contract of employment, did not know she would be sacked within 12
months and was totally unaware of her pending dismissal until the
morning her employer terminated her employment. The only reason
given to her was the risk of having to employ her permanently if
she went over 12 months.
In his letter to the Labour Relations Commission on 10th August,
1995, the employer seems to imply that it was always his intention
to only employ the employees for a period of less than 12 months
although this was never conveyed to this employee. While the
employer in his letter indicates that his legal advice was that he
could operate as he had, the Court believes that in this case the
practise as applied was an abuse of the system and the employee.
Taking into account the information before it, the Court finds
that the dismissal was unfair and recommends that the employer pay
the claimant a once-off payment of £500 and supply her with a
suitable reference in full and final settlement of the case.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
8th November, 1995 Finbarr Flood
F.B./A.K. ---------------
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.