Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95483 Case Number: LCR15008 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: CANTWELL ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING LIMITED (Represented by F P GLEESON & CO) - and - A WORKER |
Alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
The Court notes that the Company indicated prior to the hearing
that it would be not attending the hearing. A statement setting
out their position was submitted.
Having considered the submissions the Court has concluded that the
claimant was unfairly treated.
The Court accordingly recommends that the Company compensate her
in the sum of £600.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95483 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15008
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
CANTWELL ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING LIMITED
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company as
a secretary/receptionist on the 13th June, 1994. She was
dismissed on the 22nd June, 1994. The worker claimed that
her dismissal was unfair. She sought to refer the dispute to
a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation
but the Company objected to such an investigation. On the
21st August, 1995 the worker 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. A Labour court hearing was held in Roscrea
on the 28th November, 1995. The Company (through its legal
representative) outlined its position to the Court by letter
dated 24th November, 1995 and declined to attend the
hearing.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker attended 2 interviews and was told she was
successful in her application for the post of
secretary/receptionist. She left another Company to
take up the post with Cantwells in June, 1994.
2. The following week management stated that "business was
quiet and that they had not got a job for the claimant".
She was dismissed on 22nd June, 1994, 8 working days
after commencing employment.
3. The Company appeared to have plenty of work while the
employee concerned was in the employment.
4. The worker was happy in the employment, she was under
the impression she had been appointed to a permanent
post. She had given up a good job to take up the post
in Cantwells.
5. The employee worked competently and efficiently while in
the employment. The Company confirmed this in their
reference to her. She was shocked and devastated when
informed that her employment was being terminated.
6. The worker subsequently obtained her old position back
with the Company she left to join Cantwells. It took
her a long time to settle in but she felt embarrassed
and disappointed at her treatment by Cantwells. After
her experience she lacks the confidence to change jobs
again even though she presently travels 50 miles to and
from work daily. She was unfairly and arbitrarily
dismissed. The worker seeks appropriate compensation.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that the Company indicated prior to the hearing
that it would be not attending the hearing. A statement setting
out their position was submitted.
Having considered the submissions the Court has concluded that the
claimant was unfairly treated.
The Court accordingly recommends that the Company compensate her
in the sum of £600.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
12th December, 1995 Evelyn Owens
T.O'D./D.T. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.