Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94724 Case Number: LCR15042 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: BOSE IRELAND - and - A WORKER |
Alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is satisfied that there was a genuine
misunderstanding between the parties with regard to the claimant's
availability for day work. The Court cannot find that she was
unfairly treated as claimed but does recommend that the Company
give every consideration to offering her employment in the future.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94724 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15042
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: BOSE IRELAND
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the manufacture of loudspeakers and
audio systems in Carrickmacross, Co Monaghan, employing
approximately 150 permanent employees. Between 50 and 75
additional temporary workers are employed in order to meet
irregular peaks in production requirements.
The dispute concerns one worker who claims that she was unfairly
dismissed when she was not re-employed by the Company in August,
1994, following a period of layoff. The worker had been employed
on a temporary basis from the 26th of July, 1993 to the 19th of
November, 1993. She claims that at the time of her layoff, she was
assured that she would be re-employed when the Company's business
increased. The Company denies having given a commitment to re-hire
her. The worker raised the matter with the Labour Relations
Commission but the Company objected to a Rights Commissioner's
investigation. The dispute was referred by the worker to the
Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. The Court investigated the dispute, in Cavan,
on the 5th of December, 1995.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Prior to leaving the employment in November, 1993, all
workers were informed by the managing director and the
human resources manager that all would be re-employed if
they so wished, when business improved.
2. Although the worker was called for eye/ear tests, the
Company subsequently did not re-engage her. On enquiring
as to the reason the Company gave certain reasons
(details supplied) which are rejected.
3. The worker had a part-time job which she would have been
prepared to give up, had she been re-employed by the
Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. At the time of interview it transpired that the worker
had a part-time job in the mornings, which she was not in
a position to give up for temporary employment with the
Company.
2. During her previous time with the Company, the worker had
difficulty reaching certain output levels and had
complained on numerous occasions about having difficulty
with being required to stand constantly during the
working day.
3. At the time her termination, the Company did not make any
commitment to re-hire her nor could it make any such
commitment.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court is satisfied that there was a genuine
misunderstanding between the parties with regard to the claimant's
availability for day work. The Court cannot find that she was
unfairly treated as claimed but does recommend that the Company
give every consideration to offering her employment in the future.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
21st December, 1995 -------------
M.K./U.S. Chairman
NOTE:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.