Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95666 Case Number: AD962 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: MESSRS DAVID MAURICE AND KEVIN BROPHY (Represented by TRADING AS ADVANCED TRAINING CONSULTANTS (IRELAND) LIMITED) - and - A WORKER |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. ST355/95 concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
The Court upholds the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation which
it considers appropriate in view of the very unfair treatment
meted out to the claimant by this employer during the short period
of her employment.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Flood Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95666 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD296
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
MESSRS DAVID MAURICE AND KEVIN BROPHY
TRADING AS ADVANCED TRAINING CONSULTANTS (IRELAND) LIMITED
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No.
ST355/95 concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company on
15th June, 1995. Her duties involved setting-up appointments
for management with prospective clients for which she was
paid £5.00 commission for every appointment.
The worker was employed on a trial basis for one month.
Management indicated that following the trial period her
employment would be made permanent and that she would be paid
£100.00 per week plus commission.
The worker's employment was terminated on 4th August, 1995.
The worker claimed that she had been unfairly dismissed and
referred the matter to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. On 23rd November, 1995 the
Rights Commissioner recommended as follows:-
"I recommend that the Claimant was unfairly dismissed without
just causes shown and that she was not afforded fair
procedures before the fact of dismissal. By way of redress I
recommend that she is paid the sum of £500 as she has not
found work yet and is still visibly affected by the
experience".
The Employer did not attend the Rights Commissioner's
hearing.
The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation was appealed by the
worker to the Labour Court on 28th November, 1995, under
Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The
Labour Court heard the appeal on 18th December, 1995. The
Company was not represented at the Court hearing.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
1. When the worker was interviewed for the position, management
indicated that she would be on a trial period for one month
following which she would be made permanent and paid £100.00
per week, plus commission. The worker received no pay for
the period of her employment.
2. The worker operated under very bad conditions. There were no
windows or natural light and management constantly used
abusive language towards her.
3. The manner in which the worker was treated during the period
of her employment and the nature of her dismissal has caused
her considerable stress. She should be compensated for her
loss of employment.
DECISION:
The Court upholds the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation which
it considers appropriate in view of the very unfair treatment
meted out to the claimant by this employer during the short period
of her employment.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
17th January, 1996 Finbarr Flood
F.B./A.K. ---------------
Deputy Chairman