FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : OLD TURNPIKE INN LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY DALTON HOGAN ,SOLICITORS) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY ALDERMAN SEAN GRIFFIN) DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Rec ST34/95 by both parties.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed by the Company from 16th October, 1994, to mid-December, 1994, working in the public house and nightclub attached to the Old Turnpike Inn. She alleges that the following incident occurred.
On 15th December,1994, whilst querying a discrepancy in her pay cheque, the owner informed her that certain matters had been reported by a security man. As a consequence, the worker's employment was terminated. The worker denied that she was party to any of the matters raised, and alleged that she was unfairly dismissed.
The dispute was referred to the Rights Commissioner and a hearing took place on 27th April, 1995. The Company did not attend the hearing. The Rights Commissioner's recommendation is as follows:-
"I recommend that the claimant was unfairly dismissed as she was denied fair procedures and the employer had no reasonable grounds for losing all trust and confidence in her as an employee.
By way of redress I recommend that she is compensated in the sum of £1,000 (say one thousand pounds) for the loss of her employment and for the mental anguish she suffered as a result of circumstances of her unfair dismissal."
Both parties appealed the recommendation, and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 30th August, 1995, but as the worker, who is an Australian citizen, was unable to attend, the hearing was adjourned. The hearing resumed on 7th May, 1996, in Limerick.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The alleged incident happened on 12th December but the owner made no reference to it until 15th December, although the worker spoke to him on Tuesday, 13th December. Another worker who was employed at the time was not questioned in regard to the matters raised.
2. The worker was unable to obtain work for a number of weeks as a result of her dismissal. She had no previous problems with her employer, who had previously told her that he was happy with her work.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The owner, in dismissing the worker, acted on information that he received from a security guard employed by the Company. The worker was informed that she was not carrying out her duties as was required of her.
2. The Company received a message regarding the Rights Commissioners hearing but no other contact was made. As a result, the Company was not represented at the hearing and could give no information about the incident. The Company feels that a written outline from the Rights Commissioner should have been received regarding its position.
DECISION:
The Court considered all of the views expressed by the parties in their oral and written submissions.
The Court noted that the employer had not attended the Rights Commissioner's hearing.
From all of the evidence presented, it is clear to the Court that the employer accepted information from a third party in good faith. The employer has made clear to the Court that, whilst the manner in which he dealt with the issues arising left much to be desired, he wished to record that no question arose with regard to the integrity or honesty of the claimant.
The Court notes that the parties have resolved the matter, and that the Company will pay to the claimant the award recommended by the Rights Commissioner.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
13th June, 1996______________________
C.O'N/D.TDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.