Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95197 Case Number: LCR14788 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: HARRY RAMSDENS - and - A WORKER |
Dispute concerning an alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
The Court notes that the Company in this case chose not to attend
the hearing. The Court, having considered the appellant's
submission and the reply from the Company to questions asked by
the Court, has concluded that the appellant was not unfairly
dismissed and that
the dismissal was implemented in accordance with the terms she
signed.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95197 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14788
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
HARRY RAMSDENS
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning an alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company operates a fish and chip restaurant under a
franchise agreement and has recently opened its first
outlet in Ireland. The worker was employed as a table
clearer, from 4th December to 15th December, 1994, when
she was dismissed.
2. On 23rd March, 1995, the worker sought a Labour Court
investigation under the terms of Section 20(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. By letter dated 28th
April, 1995, the Company informed the Court that it
would not be attending the investigation. The Court
investigated the dispute on 3rd May, 1995.
3. Following the investigation, the Court wrote to the
Company seeking its response to some questions which the
Court was unable to ask at the investigation. The
Company responded to the Courts letter on 8th May, 1995,
as follows:-
"1. The worker did infact commence employment of 4th
December, 1994 until 15th December, 1994.
2. Payslips are available every Friday and the
payslips are located in the Kitchen office.
Payslips are not handed directly to the staff as
the nature of the business is shift work. All
employees are aware of this procedure.
3. The worker was issued with a P.45, a copy of which
is on our files.
4. The staff book is relevant to this case, ref. page
15 paragraph 1. which states that the first month
of employment is a period of mutual assessment for
both parties. During this period the employee or
the Company may terminate the employment without
any notice. The worker has signed a copy to say
that she understands and has read the staff
handbook.
5. The worker signed a written contract and the
duplicate of this is on file".
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker's starting salary was increased shortly after
she commenced work (details supplied). She was informed
the the increase was because of the high standard of her
work.
2. The worker was never advised of any complaints regarding
her work. On the contrary she was praised for her
performance and trained in other areas as a result(
details supplied). The worker was dismissed without
reason and is seeking to be reinstated.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that the Company in this case chose not to attend
the hearing. The Court, having considered the appellant's
submission and the reply from the Company to questions asked by
the Court, has concluded that the appellant was not unfairly
dismissed and that
the dismissal was implemented in accordance with the terms she
signed.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
31st May, 1995 Evelyn Owens
J.F./D.T. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.