Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9621 Case Number: LCR15114 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: KEPAK LIMITED (Represented by SMYTH, O'BRIEN AND HEGARTY, SOLICITORS) - and - MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
The Court has fully considered all of the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions, and finds that the
manner in which the claimant was dismissed was unfair.
The Court, given the circumstances of the case, recommends that
she be paid a lump sum in the amount of £400 in full and final
settlement of this dispute.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9621 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15114
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
KEPAK LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY SMYTH, O'BRIEN AND HEGARTY, SOLICITORS)
AND
MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed by the Company on three separate
occasions between March, 1993 and June, 1995. Her duties
involved part-time office cleaning. However, in February,
1995 she commenced full time employment in the Canteen. The
worker claims that, shortly after commencing work in the
Canteen , she was the subject of abuse and harassment from
the Canteen Manageress. She claims that following incidents
on the 21st and 22nd June, 1995 (details supplied to the
Court) the Transport Manager terminated her employment. The
Company claims that the worker voluntarily resigned her
position and was not dismissed.
The Union referred the dispute to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation. The Company objected to an investigation and
also refused to attend the Labour Relations Commission for
conciliation. The Union then referred the dispute to the
Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took
place on 6th March, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was employed by the Company previously and
worked well with other staff and management. She was
very happy working for the Company. However, she could
no longer tolerate the constant abuse and intimidation
to which she was subjected, and made a complaint to the
Transport Manager.
2. Management has been aware of the problem with the
Canteen Manageress for some time, but have compounded
the situation by refusing to deal with it. Other
employees were subjected to similar abuse, some of whom
subsequently left the Company.
3. There were witnesses in the Canteen to the incidents on
the 21st and 22nd of June, 1995. However, Management's
investigation involved speaking to the Manageress only.
Despite the worker's protests, the Company implemented
her dismissal.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has an agreement with SIPTU recognising it
as the sole and exclusive bargaining agency for all its
workers, excluding foremen and clerical staff. Despite
this fact, the Company's solicitor was prepared to meet
with the worker's Union representative, but received no
reply to his letter dated 3rd November, 1995.
2. Following a disagreement with the Canteen Manageress on
22nd June, 1995, the worker indicated to the Transport
Manager that she was unhappy with her position in the
Company and would not be returning to work. He agreed
with her decision.
3. On the 23rd June, 1995 the Transport Manager informed
the Financial Controller of the worker's resignation,
who then forwarded her P45. The following day a friend
of the worker telephoned to say that she was upset the
day before and did not intend to resign. Despite a
request to speak to the worker in person, the Transport
Manager had no further contact with the worker.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has fully considered all of the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions, and finds that the
manner in which the claimant was dismissed was unfair.
The Court, given the circumstances of the case, recommends that
she be paid a lump sum in the amount of £400 in full and final
settlement of this dispute.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
21st March, 1996 Tom McGrath
D.G./S.G. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Ms. Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.