Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94706 Case Number: LCR14675 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: BISCUIT MAKERS LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
The employer did not attend the Court. In the absence of the
employer the only evidence before the Court was that of the
claimant.
The Court is satisfied that the claimant was given no satisfactory
explanation for her dismissal despite subsequent attempts to imply
that her attitude and performance had been below standard. At no
stage during the 5 months during which the claimant was employed
had there been any complaint or indication of dissatisfaction from
the Company.
Taking this into consideration, the Court believes it is incumbent
on the Company to provide the claimant with a reference reflecting
this. The Court further recommends that in addition to the money
due to the claimant, payment of #100 be made by the employer in
full and final settlement of this claim.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Pierce Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94706 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14675
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
BISCUIT MAKERS LIMITED
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker commenced employment with the Company, as an
operative, on the 10th of May, 1994. Her employment was
terminated on the 7th of October, 1994. The worker claimed
that the Company had no reasonable grounds to dismiss her and
sought to have her dismissal investigated by a Rights
Commissioner. The Company objected to a hearing by a Rights
Commissioner and the worker referred the matter to the Labour
Court, on the 6th of December, 1994, in accordance with
Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The
Company indicated to the Court, by letter, that the worker
had been dismissed under the Probation Clause of her Contract
of Employment and that she had been offered one week's pay in
lieu of notice, which she declined. The Company also
notified the Court of its intention neither to attend nor to
be represented at the hearing. The Court investigated the
dispute on the 1st of February, 1994.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. From the time of her appointment, no indication was
given by the Company to the worker that there was any
dissatisfaction concerning any aspect of her work-
performance. At all times, she carried out her duties
to the best of her ability. She would also help other
members of staff when it was necessary. On one
occasion, having suffered a cut to her hand caused by
the continuing friction of lifting biscuits, she was
refused permission to leave the line to wash and dress
the wound.
2. A subsequent inference by the Company that the worker's
attitude was unsatisfactory is rejected. She carried
out a wide range of duties, as required. At no stage
did the Company apply, nor did it have reason to apply,
its disciplinary procedures. An issue raised by the
Company in relation to a training course followed the
misunderstanding by the worker of the nature of the
training course.
3. During the course of her job-interview with a manager of
the Company, the worker was informed that there would be
no vacancies in the immediate future. However, it was
intimated to her that if she had been on the live
register for 13 weeks or more she would be considered
for employment as the Company "would receive a grant".
On confirming that she had been unemployed for 13 weeks,
she was immediately offered employment. It is possible
that her employment was terminated as the period of
subsidised wages was nearing an end.
RECOMMENDATION:
The employer did not attend the Court. In the absence of the
employer the only evidence before the Court was that of the
claimant.
The Court is satisfied that the claimant was given no satisfactory
explanation for her dismissal despite subsequent attempts to imply
that her attitude and performance had been below standard. At no
stage during the 5 months during which the claimant was employed
had there been any complaint or indication of dissatisfaction from
the Company.
Taking this into consideration, the Court believes it is incumbent
on the Company to provide the claimant with a reference reflecting
this. The Court further recommends that in addition to the money
due to the claimant, payment of #100 be made by the employer in
full and final settlement of this claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
9th February, 1995 Finbarr Flood
M.K./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.