Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95278 Case Number: LCR14808 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: DOCUPRINT LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Alleged unfair dismissal
Recommendation:
The Court has considered the oral and written submissions of the
claimant. The Company did not attend the Court or make a
submission available. In arriving at its findings the Court took
account of the above and the previous record and experience of the
worker concerned.
In the light of all the circumstances the Court finds that the
claimant was unfairly dismissed.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that she be paid compensation in
the amount of #500. Further the Court recommends that the parties
calculate the overtime due to the claimant up to the date of her
dismissal and arrange that any shortfall be made good.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Pierce Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95278 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14808
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
DOCUPRINT LIMITED
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged unfair dismissal
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company in
October 1994. She did not receive a written contract of
employment. She was dismissed on the 24th February, 1995, on
the grounds that her work was of "poor quality". The worker
claimed that she was unfairly dismissed and on the 17th
April, 1995 referred the dispute to the Labour Court under
Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The
worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A
Labour Court hearing was held on the 8th June, 1995. The
Company declined an invitation to attend the hearing.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker gave up good employment in another Company to
take up the position in Docuprint. She hoped to advance
her career in the printing industry.
2. The Employer agreed to pay her a weekly wage equal to
that which she had received in her previous employment.
He did not do so. She was not paid the correct amounts
for overtime worked.
3. The employee concerned has worked in the printing trade
for many years and held the post of quality control
supervisor in another employment (details supplied to
the Court). Her work at Docuprint was of good quality.
She did not receive a verbal warning prior to her
dismissal.
4. The Company's quality control system was inefficient.
Many of the employees had little experience and the
worker concerned helped many of those employees with
their work.
5. Some three weeks into the employment a new production
supervisor was appointed and following a disagreement
about how a piece of work should be completed he loudly
verbally abused the claimant in front of other workers.
He subsequently apologised to the worker.
6. Thereafter the working environment changed and the
worker was subsequently dismissed on the grounds of
"poor quality work". The worker was very conscientious
in carrying out her duties, her work was of high
quality. She was treated in a most unfair, unjust
manner and arbitrarily dismissed without a suitable
reference. She seeks appropriate compensation.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the oral and written submissions of the
claimant. The Company did not attend the Court or make a
submission available. In arriving at its findings the Court took
account of the above and the previous record and experience of the
worker concerned.
In the light of all the circumstances the Court finds that the
claimant was unfairly dismissed.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that she be paid compensation in
the amount of #500. Further the Court recommends that the parties
calculate the overtime due to the claimant up to the date of her
dismissal and arrange that any shortfall be made good.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
27th June, 1995 Tom McGrath
T.O'D./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.