Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95330 Case Number: LCR14884 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: ST. NICHOLAS OF MYRA (IMPACT) - and - IMPACT |
Unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has fully considered all of the views expressed by
the parties. The Court fully recognises the circumstances under
which these projects are undertaken. However, the employee here
concerned, in the manner in which his employment was terminated,
was treated unfairly.
Accordingly the Court recommends that he be paid compensation in
the amount of #800 in full and final settlement of this dispute.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Pierce Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95330 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14884
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: ST. NICHOLAS OF MYRA
and
IMPACT
SUBJECT:
1. Unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The employer is a sponsoring committee overseeing community
projects. The projects are funded by FAS. The worker concerned
commenced employment as a supervisor of the Liberties Living
Heritage Centre community project on 13th June, 1994. It is one
of three such community employment projects run by the above
sponsoring committee. On the 26th May, 1995, the worker was given
two weeks notice that his employment would be terminated on the
9th June, 1995. The Union claimed that the worker was being
unfairly dismissed and sought to refer the dispute to a Right's
Commissioner for investigation. The Employer objected to such an
investigation. On the 30th May, 1995, the Union 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. A Labour Court hearing was held on the 1st
August, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Prior to the commencement of his employment the worker
was engaged to prepare a submission and application to
FAS for the project on behalf of the sponsoring
committee. He received payment for this engagement.
2. The worker tried to obtain a written contract of
employment prior to and since the commencement of his
employment. Despite numerous requests he was
unsuccessful. The Employer by failing to do so was in
breach of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act
1994. When the employer eventually responded with a
draft contract it was completely at variance with the
understanding reached prior to commencement of the
worker's employment.
3. On the 19th May, 1995, the worker was advised that his
contract of employment from 13th June 1994 to 9th June
1995 would be completed shortly. On the 30th May, he
reported for work to find the locks to his office
changed. At a subsequent meeting he was given an
envelope containing a letter of dismissal dated 26th
May, 1995.
4. The worker was dismissed in an unfair and arbitrary
fashion. He did not receive a written warning and no
reason was given for his summary dismissal. The Union
seeks appropriate compensation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker concerned was dismissed because of a letter
which he sent to the Chairman of the Committee
criticising his treatment of workers employed on the
project (details supplied to the Court). The chairman
has very long service dealing with all types of
community projects and has always enjoyed excellent
relations with workers on these projects. The chairman
was extremely annoyed by the contents of the letter and
when he tried to discuss same with the claimant he was
not available to do so on various occasions.
2. The worker concerned proved to be unsuitable for the
position of supervisor (details supplied to the Court).
The Committee were anxious to terminate his employment,
however, the Chairman, having hired the worker, sought
to retain him for the 12 months of his contract. Given
the worker's unsuitability for the post the Committee
was left with no alternative but to dismiss him when
his contract expired. He was given the appropriate
notice.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has fully considered all of the views expressed by
the parties. The Court fully recognises the circumstances under
which these projects are undertaken. However, the employee here
concerned, in the manner in which his employment was terminated,
was treated unfairly.
Accordingly the Court recommends that he be paid compensation in
the amount of #800 in full and final settlement of this dispute.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
7th September, 1995 _______________
T O'D/U.S. Deputy Chairman
NOTE:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr Tom O'Dea.