Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95370 Case Number: LCR14903 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: RICHARD GERNON (JOHN ROCHFORD AND CO. SOLICITORS) - and - A WORKER;ALAN P TOAL S.C. INSTRUCTED BY;YVONNE R GILMER AND CO. SOLICITORS |
Alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
The Court proceeded to hear this case in the absence of the
employer who indicated through his legal representative that he
did not propose to become involved in any hearing.
The Court, having heard the oral and written submissions, and
having questioned the claimant finds on the basis of the evidence
put forward:-
(1) That there were no grounds to warrant the allegations made by
the employer.
(2) That the employee was not given an opportunity to answer the
allegations made.
(3) That the employee was not given notice of termination of
employment in accordance with the provisions of the Minimum
Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973.
(4) That the employee was not paid holiday pay due to her in
accordance with the provisions of the Holidays (Employees)
Act, 1973.
(5) That since the termination of her employment the employer has
not provided her with her P.45.
Given all of the above it is the view of the Court that the
employee was unfairly dismissed, that the manner in which the
dismissal was carried out was unreasonable and at variance with
the actions which would be expected from any reasonable employer.
The Court recommends that she be given her P.45 immediately and
that she be paid one weeks pay in respect of her notice and such
holiday pay as she was entitled to under the provisions of the
Act.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95370 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14903
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
RICHARD GERNON
(REPRESENTED BY JOHN ROCHFORD AND CO. SOLICITORS)
AND
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY ALAN P TOAL S.C. INSTRUCTED BY
YVONNE R GILMER AND CO. SOLICITORS)
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment in April, 1994 as a
shop assistant in the employer's outlet which is mainly a
newsagents business. She was initially employed on a
part-time basis and after a few weeks was appointed
full-time. The worker was dismissed on the 20th October,
1994. She claimed unfair dismissal and sought to refer the
dispute to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and
recommendation. The employer objected to such an
investigation. On the 14th January, 1995 the worker, through
her legal representative, referred the dispute to the Labour
Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
The Court investigated the dispute on the 14th September,
1995. The employer, through his legal representative,
declined an invitation to attend the hearing.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker had an excellent employment record with the
Company and a very good working relationship with the
employer who also worked on the premises. She is
related to the employer through marriage. During the
first few months in the employment she received a number
of pay increases. The worker opened the shop at 7.30
a.m. as opposed to 9.00 a.m. (her normal start time) in
order to facilitate her employer. She also worked
overtime. The worker was not made aware of any
complaints about her work and never received either a
verbal or written warning.
2. On Thursday 20th October,1994 the claimant's
sister-in-law advised her that she was due to commence
work in the shop on Monday 24th October. The worker
assumed they would be working together. On reporting
for work on 24th October the claimant was advised by her
employer that there were discrepancies in the till on
two occasions (Details supplied to the Court). The
worker was ordered to leave the premises immediately.
3. The worker vehemently denies that she, at any time,
removed items from the shop without the employer's
consent. She was greatly embarrassed, upset and
humiliated by the unfounded allegations of the employer.
She was arbitrarily and unfairly dismissed without
warnings, appropriate notice or holiday pay. She did
not receive the relevant tax form P45. The worker seeks
appropriate redress.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court proceeded to hear this case in the absence of the
employer who indicated through his legal representative that he
did not propose to become involved in any hearing.
The Court, having heard the oral and written submissions, and
having questioned the claimant finds on the basis of the evidence
put forward:-
(1) That there were no grounds to warrant the allegations made by
the employer.
(2) That the employee was not given an opportunity to answer the
allegations made.
(3) That the employee was not given notice of termination of
employment in accordance with the provisions of the Minimum
Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973.
(4) That the employee was not paid holiday pay due to her in
accordance with the provisions of the Holidays (Employees)
Act, 1973.
(5) That since the termination of her employment the employer has
not provided her with her P.45.
Given all of the above it is the view of the Court that the
employee was unfairly dismissed, that the manner in which the
dismissal was carried out was unreasonable and at variance with
the actions which would be expected from any reasonable employer.
The Court recommends that she be given her P.45 immediately and
that she be paid one weeks pay in respect of her notice and such
holiday pay as she was entitled to under the provisions of the
Act.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
3rd October, 1995 Tom McGrath
T.O'D./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.