Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95143 Case Number: LCR14765 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: LEISUREPLEX CORK LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
The employer did not attend the Court hearing. In the absence of
the employer the only evidence before the Court was that of the
claimant plus written correspondence from the Company.
The Court was surprised that no discussion had taken place with
the claimant in relation to the completion of her probationary
period, given that the 3 months period was up days after her
dismissal.
The Court, having heard the guidelines given to the claimant by
the manager of the Complex on her recruitment, and the absence of
any indication of dissatisfaction with her performance from the
Company over the 3 months of her employment, can find no grounds
for her dismissal.
Taking into account all aspects of this case the Court recommends
a payment of #400 by the employer to the claimant in full and
final settlement of the claim.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Pierce Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95143 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14765
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
LEISUREPLEX CORK LIMITED
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed as a duty supervisor by the Company
on 19th September, 1994. On 14th December, 1994, the worker
closed the Leisureplex centre one hour earlier than usual -
at 11.00 p.m. On 15th December, 1995, the worker was advised
by management that she should not have closed the centre
early. She was given her P45 and dismissed.
The Company stated in writing to the Court that the worker
was employed on a three month probationary period. At the
end of the three months she was found to be unsuitable for
the position of duty supervisor. Closing the centre early
was one example of the unsuitability.
The worker felt that she was unfairly dismissed and referred
the dispute to the Labour Court on the 8th February, 1995,
under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A
Labour Court hearing took place on 8th May, 1995. The
Company did not attend the hearing.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was told by the general manager that she
should use her own discretion in making decisions.
Senior staff had closed the centre early on a number of
previous occasions when the centre was not busy. On the
night of the 14th December, 1994, there were very few
patrons in the centre. The worker felt that the correct
procedure was to close the centre.
2. The worker was handed her P45 and dismissed as soon as
she reported for work on 15th December, 1994. She was
given no warning or notice. The worker was not aware of
any problems with management during her period of
employment.
RECOMMENDATION:
The employer did not attend the Court hearing. In the absence of
the employer the only evidence before the Court was that of the
claimant plus written correspondence from the Company.
The Court was surprised that no discussion had taken place with
the claimant in relation to the completion of her probationary
period, given that the 3 months period was up days after her
dismissal.
The Court, having heard the guidelines given to the claimant by
the manager of the Complex on her recruitment, and the absence of
any indication of dissatisfaction with her performance from the
Company over the 3 months of her employment, can find no grounds
for her dismissal.
Taking into account all aspects of this case the Court recommends
a payment of #400 by the employer to the claimant in full and
final settlement of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
19th May, 1995 Finbarr Flood
C.O'N./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.