Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95186 Case Number: LCR14758 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: BLOOMFIELD HOSPITAL (THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - A WORKER |
Alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
In all the circumstance of this case and, in particular, noting
that the complainant was never issued with a warning as to his
alleged unsatisfactory behaviour, the Court is of the view that he
was unfairly treated.
The Court, accordingly, recommends that he be paid a sum of #500
as compensation.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95186 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14758
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
BLOOMFIELD HOSPITAL
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed by the Hospital on 1st June, 1994.
His work involved caring for aged patients, sorting out
laundry and assisting nurses and staff when requested. He
reported directly to the staff nurse on duty. The worker
claims that he was unfairly dismissed on 27th January, 1995.
The worker referred the dispute to the Labour Court on 28th
February, 1995, under Section 20(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on
19th April, 1995.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was the only orderly employed at the
Hospital. He had to carry heavy laundry baskets up and
down stairs 4/5 times a day. He was expected to do
laundry duties and be on the ward at the same time. The
list of duties he was expected to do (details supplied
to the Court) was more than one worker could manage.
2. During winter months there was a high rate of
absenteeism, due to sickness, amongst the nurses. The
worker's work load increased. He informed management
but nothing was done about it. The worker was not
informed that there was any problem with his work until
he was dismissed.
HOSPITAL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker made use of the shower and toilet facilities
in the Hospital. Despite being informed by the staff
nurse that the facilities were only for the cadet nurses
he continued to use them.
2. The worker allowed one of the patients to assist him
with the laundry. The hospital had no objection to
this. However, when the worker allowed the patient to
assist him with the personal care of other patients, he
was told that it was not acceptable. The worker allowed
the practise to continue. When the patient could no
longer help the worker, he complained that his workload
was too heavy. The previous worker who held the
position had never complained regarding the amount of
work.
3. The worker received a number of warnings regarding his
behaviour, including entering the home of the cadet
nurses without permission and watching television. When
his behaviour did not improve the Hospital had no choice
but to dismiss him.
RECOMMENDATION:
In all the circumstance of this case and, in particular, noting
that the complainant was never issued with a warning as to his
alleged unsatisfactory behaviour, the Court is of the view that he
was unfairly treated.
The Court, accordingly, recommends that he be paid a sum of #500
as compensation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
8th May, 1995 Evelyn Owens
C.O'N./D.T. -------------
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.