Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95417 Case Number: AD9614 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: EUROTWIST LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. BC98/95 concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
The Court is of the view that as the directors of both Eurotwist
Limited and Manley, Eurobake Limited are the same people and the
same staff were employed in Eurotwist as Eurobake with the
exception of the claimant a continuity of employment exists.
The Court upholds the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation and
rejects the appeal.
The Court so decides.
Division:
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95417 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD1496
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
EUROTWIST LIMITED
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. BC98/95
concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company as
a counter-hand in January, 1994. Her employment was
terminated on 9th January, 1995. The worker had been absent
from work for several weeks due to a family bereavement and
was informed of her dismissal on her return to work.
The worker claimed that she had been unfairly dismissed and
referred the matter to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. The Rights Commissioner's
findings and recommendation are as follows:-
"1. Having investigated the matter and having given
full and careful consideration to the points made
by the claimant and having subjected her testimony
to the most scrupulous examination I am satisfied
that the claimant was unfairly selected for
redundancy on the date in question, 9th January,
1995.
2. I note that the claimant was not given her
statutory entitlements by way of notice.
In the light of the above my recommendation is that
Louise Manley should pay to the worker the sum of #360
and that this be accepted by her in full and final
settlement of all claims on the employer in relation to
her employment and its termination."
The worker was named in the recommendation.
The Rights Commissioner's recommendation was appealed by the
worker to the Labour Court on 20th July, 1995 under Section
13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Labour
Court heard the appeal on 2nd February, 1996.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It was the worker's understanding that she was
progressing well in her job. She was contented in her
employment and received no complaints from management
regarding her work. When her employer opened a new shop
she was the only employee that was not offered
employment at the new location.
2. The worker was unfairly treated by management. She was
absent from work due to a family bereavement and
submitted a doctor's certificate for the period of her
absence. Her dismissal has caused her great hardship
and financial embarrassment. In the circumstances, the
Rights Commissioner's Recommendation is justified.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company was forced to cease trading following a
series of robberies at the Company's premises which
caused considerable damage. It left the employer with
no alternative but to terminate the worker's
employment.
2. Following the closure of the business the wife of the
worker's Employer invested in a small cafe. Staff
employed at the cafe is outside the control of the
worker's former Employer.
DECISION:
The Court is of the view that as the directors of both Eurotwist
Limited and Manley, Eurobake Limited are the same people and the
same staff were employed in Eurotwist as Eurobake with the
exception of the claimant a continuity of employment exists.
The Court upholds the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation and
rejects the appeal.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
6th March, 1996 Finbarr Flood
F.B./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman