Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9519 Case Number: AD9520 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: JONES DELICATESSEN (T/A ELIM GLEN LIMITED) - and - MANDATE |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. BC360/94 concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
In the light of the above my recommendation is that
Jerome Jones T/A Elim Glen Ltd should pay to the
worker the sum of #150 and issue to the worker a
satisfactory reference. This reference will be vetted
by Mr. Archibold and in the event of a dispute arising
with regard to its wording the matter may be referred to
me".
The worker was named in the recommendation.
The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation was appealed by the
Union to the Labour Court on 6th January, 1995 under Section
13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Labour
Court heard the appeal on 1st March, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was complemented by management in relation to
her approach to the job on a number of occasions.
2. The worker has been treated unfairly by management. In
the course of 11 months employment with the Company she
was never late and never failed to attend for work. In
the circumstances the compensation recommended by the
Rights Commissioner's is inadequate.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The workers job performance was unsatisfactory.
Management discussed the problem with her on a number of
occasions and indicated that unless her performance
improved she would be dismissed. As no improvement was
forthcoming the Company was left with no option but to
dismiss her.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court having considered all of the issues raised by the
parties in their oral and written submissions finds that the
dismissal of the claimant and the manner in which this was
effected was unfair.
Further the Court finds it unreasonable that there was such a
delay before the employee was provided with a reference.
In all the circumstances the Court has decided that the claimant
should be compensated in the sum of #300 in settlement of this
dispute.
The Rights Commissioner's recommendation should be amended
accordingly.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Pierce Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9519 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD2095
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
JONES DELICATESSEN
(T/A ELIM GLEN LIMITED)
AND
MANDATE
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. BC360/94 concerning alleged unfair
dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned in this case commenced employment with
the Company on 15th November, 1993 as a shop assistant. Her
employment was terminated on 24th October, 1994. The worker
claimed that she had been unfairly dismissed and referred the
matter to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and
recommendation. The Rights Commissioner's findings and
recommendation are as follows:-
"Findings
Having investigated the matter and having given full and
careful consideration to the points made by both parties
I have come to the following conclusions:
1. I am satisfied that the dismissal of the worker
must, in all circumstances, be regarded as unfair.
2. I note that the worker is not seeking
re-instatement.
Recommendation
In the light of the above my recommendation is that
Jerome Jones T/A Elim Glen Ltd should pay to the
worker the sum of #150 and issue to the worker a
satisfactory reference. This reference will be vetted
by Mr. Archibold and in the event of a dispute arising
with regard to its wording the matter may be referred to
me".
The worker was named in the recommendation.
The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation was appealed by the
Union to the Labour Court on 6th January, 1995 under Section
13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Labour
Court heard the appeal on 1st March, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was complemented by management in relation to
her approach to the job on a number of occasions.
2. The worker has been treated unfairly by management. In
the course of 11 months employment with the Company she
was never late and never failed to attend for work. In
the circumstances the compensation recommended by the
Rights Commissioner's is inadequate.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The workers job performance was unsatisfactory.
Management discussed the problem with her on a number of
occasions and indicated that unless her performance
improved she would be dismissed. As no improvement was
forthcoming the Company was left with no option but to
dismiss her.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court having considered all of the issues raised by the
parties in their oral and written submissions finds that the
dismissal of the claimant and the manner in which this was
effected was unfair.
Further the Court finds it unreasonable that there was such a
delay before the employee was provided with a reference.
In all the circumstances the Court has decided that the claimant
should be compensated in the sum of #300 in settlement of this
dispute.
The Rights Commissioner's recommendation should be amended
accordingly.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
15th March, 1995 Tom McGrath
F.B./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman