Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95536 Case Number: LCR14960 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: TAX BACK LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Alleged unfair dismissal
Recommendation:
In considering the written and oral submissions made by the
parties, the Court was presented with conflicting evidence on a
number of issues.
There was conflicting evidence in relation to hours of work,
payment arrangements, starting times and particularly in relation
to the performance of the claimant during her period of
employment.
Having considered the information before it, the Court finds that
the dismissal of the claimant was unfair for the following
reasons:-
1. Proper procedures to deal with disciplinary cases, which
would be expected in any reasonable employment, were non
existent and, therefore, were not used in this case.
2. No written conditions of employment were given to the
claimant, resulting in a lack of clarity on starting times
etc.
3. The manner of dismissal, by phone call to her home, was an
unacceptable method of terminating her employment.
4. The claimant was given no opportunity to respond to the
reasons outlined for her dismissal before the decision was
taken.
Taking into account all of these reasons, the Court finds that the
claimant's dismissal was unsatisfactory and recommends that she be
paid a once off payment of £400 in compensation, in full and final
settlement of the claim.
Division: Mr Flood Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95536 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14960
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
TAX BACK LIMITED
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
Alleged unfair dismissal
BACKGROUND:
The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company at
its desk in Dublin Airport on 3rd October, 1994. Her duties
involved assisting tourists in the processing of tax back
V.A.T. refund vouchers. Her hours of attendance rotated on
the basis of 3 days on and 3 days off. There was a
difference of opinion between the parties at the hearing
regarding her terms and conditions of employment. The
worker's employment was terminated on 18th July, 1995.
The worker claimed that she had been unfairly dismissed and
referred the matter to the Labour Court on the 20th
September, 1995 under Section 20(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's
recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on 24th
October, 1995.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The worker was flexible and consciencious in her approach to
her work. She regularly worked during her lunch break,
weekends and Bank Holidays. She did not receive any
additional payments or recognition from Management.
2. The worker was unfairly treated by management. The manner in
which her dismissal was carried out caused her great
embarrassment and financial hardship. She should be
compensated for her loss.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The worker failed on a number of occasions to attend for
work at the times assigned to her. It left management with
no alternative but to dismiss her. She was warned by
management in relation to her behaviour on at least six
occasions.
2. The worker's unauthorised absence from the tax back desk led
to a number of complaints from tourists and retailers using
the tax back refund system and caused considerable
embarrassment to the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
In considering the written and oral submissions made by the
parties, the Court was presented with conflicting evidence on a
number of issues.
There was conflicting evidence in relation to hours of work,
payment arrangements, starting times and particularly in relation
to the performance of the claimant during her period of
employment.
Having considered the information before it, the Court finds that
the dismissal of the claimant was unfair for the following
reasons:-
1. Proper procedures to deal with disciplinary cases, which
would be expected in any reasonable employment, were non
existent and, therefore, were not used in this case.
2. No written conditions of employment were given to the
claimant, resulting in a lack of clarity on starting times
etc.
3. The manner of dismissal, by phone call to her home, was an
unacceptable method of terminating her employment.
4. The claimant was given no opportunity to respond to the
reasons outlined for her dismissal before the decision was
taken.
Taking into account all of these reasons, the Court finds that the
claimant's dismissal was unsatisfactory and recommends that she be
paid a once off payment of £400 in compensation, in full and final
settlement of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
10th November, 1995 Finbarr Flood
F.B./A.K. ---------------
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.