Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94708 Case Number: LCR14699 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: SPRING GROVE SERVICES LIMITED - and - A WORKER;LAVELLE COLEMAN SOLICITORS |
Alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
The Court finds that the worker in this case was employed to meet
certain operational needs of the Company and that as a result of
an injury sustained he was unable to fulfil those requirements.
The Court notes he was employed two days.
The Court finds that given the needs of the Company it was
necessary to seek a replacement as quickly as possible.
In all the circumstances the Court does not consider the worker
concerned was treated unfairly.
The Court would however suggest that the Company consider
sympathetically any request for employment from the claimant in
the event of a vacancy arising in any area where he would be
considered suitable.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94708 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14699
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
SPRING GROVE SERVICES LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY LAVELLE COLEMAN SOLICITORS)
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned in this case commenced employment with
the Company on 10th May, 1994, as a manual worker.
On 1st June, 1994 at approximately 11.15 a.m. the worker
requested time off to attend a doctor. He informed his
supervisor that he had hurt his arm 24 hours earlier while
operating machinery for hanging and bagging roller towels.
The doctor certified the worker unfit for work. On 2nd June,
1994, when the worker informed the Company that he would be
available for work on 8th June, 1994 he was informed that his
services were no longer required.
The worker claimed that he had been unfairly dismissed and
referred the matter to the Labour Court under Section 20(1)
of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990 and agreed to be bound
by the Court's recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took
place on 6th February, 1994.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker concerned injured his right wrist while
operating machinery during the course of his employment.
2. The worker attended at the Meath Hospital and received a
doctor's note certifying him unfit for work until 8th
June, 1994.
3. The worker submitted the doctor's note to management and
was informed that his employment was being terminated
because of his non-availability for work. Management
later indicated that he would be re-employed if a
vacancy arose.
4. The worker has been unfairly treated by management. His
inability to work was due to an injury sustained while
in active employment for the Company. The Company has
not fulfilled its promise to re-employ the worker
although it has employed two workers in positions
similar to the position held by the worker before his
dismissal. In the circumstances the worker is seeking
reinstatement and failing this, suitable compensation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was employed on a temporary basis and as such
he was required to fulfil an operational need. The fact
that he was absent from work meant that he was unable to
fulfil this need and therefore the Company no longer
required his services.
2. The worker has alleged that he hurt his arm while
bagging roller towels. The alleged incident was not
reported to management until 24 hours after it was
alleged to have occurred.
3. There are no witnesses to the alleged accident and the
only report of its occurrence came from the worker
himself when he informed management that he thought that
'maybe' he hurt his arm the day before.
4. The worker was appointed to the Company on a temporary
basis. He was required to provide cover for annual
leave/absence of permanent staff members and in the
event he was unable to do this. The Company reserve the
right to terminate temporary employment.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court finds that the worker in this case was employed to meet
certain operational needs of the Company and that as a result of
an injury sustained he was unable to fulfil those requirements.
The Court notes he was employed two days.
The Court finds that given the needs of the Company it was
necessary to seek a replacement as quickly as possible.
In all the circumstances the Court does not consider the worker
concerned was treated unfairly.
The Court would however suggest that the Company consider
sympathetically any request for employment from the claimant in
the event of a vacancy arising in any area where he would be
considered suitable.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
7th March, 1995 Tom McGrath
F.B./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.