Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD951 Case Number: AD9518 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: COASTGUARD RESTAURANT - and - A WORKER |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation CW184/94 concerning unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
The Court noted the employer could not attend the hearing and also
that no other Company representative was in attendance.
The Court took full account of all of the issues raised by the
employer in his letter of 1st February, 1995 and the oral and
written submissions of the claimant.
The Court found from its records that no letter of appeal dated
18th December, 1994 in accordance with the provisions of Section
13(9)(a) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 was received from
the employer.
The Court, given all of the circumstances of the case, finds that
the worker was treated unfairly, that the actions of the employer
in the manner of her dismissal were contrary to what would be
expected from any reasonable employer.
Accordingly, the Court upholds her appeal. It is the decision of
the Court that the worker should be compensated in the amount of
#500 which she should accept in settlement of this issue. The
Rights Commissioner's recommendation should be amended
accordingly.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD951 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD1895
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
COASTGUARD RESTAURANT
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation CW184/94
concerning unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker commenced working in the restaurant on 8th June,
1994, after attending two interviews for the job. She was to
receive a wage of #175.00 per week net. She did a number of
jobs including dealing with cash.
On 12th June, 1994, the worker was told that she was to be
let go. The Company claims that the worker was unsuitable
for the job of a supervisor. It claims that the restaurant
lost #110 as a result of her errors in dealing with cash.
The dispute was referred to the Rights Commissioner and a
hearing took place on 16th November, 1994. The Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation follows:-
"I recommend that the Restaurant offers and the worker
accepts #350 in settlement of this dispute."
(The worker was named in the above recommendation).
The worker appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on
30th December, 1994, under Section 13(9) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on
27th February, 1995 (the earliest date suitable to the
parties). The Company did not attend the hearing.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was hired as an "assistant manageress" not as
a "supervisor" as the Company claims. She made a
mistake involving #10 cash on the first day but offered
to rectify this. There were no other mistakes involving
cash. The worker has dealt with cash in a number of
previous jobs and never had any problem. She had
excellent references from the jobs.
2. The worker left full time employment in a hotel to take
up the job in the restaurant. She was told that she was
being let go by the owner's young son. She phoned the
owner on a number of occasions enquiring as to why she
was let go. She was told that she had lied about her
references and was unable to handle cash properly.
DECISION:
The Court noted the employer could not attend the hearing and also
that no other Company representative was in attendance.
The Court took full account of all of the issues raised by the
employer in his letter of 1st February, 1995 and the oral and
written submissions of the claimant.
The Court found from its records that no letter of appeal dated
18th December, 1994 in accordance with the provisions of Section
13(9)(a) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 was received from
the employer.
The Court, given all of the circumstances of the case, finds that
the worker was treated unfairly, that the actions of the employer
in the manner of her dismissal were contrary to what would be
expected from any reasonable employer.
Accordingly, the Court upholds her appeal. It is the decision of
the Court that the worker should be compensated in the amount of
#500 which she should accept in settlement of this issue. The
Rights Commissioner's recommendation should be amended
accordingly.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
10th March, 1995 Tom McGrath
C.O'N./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman