FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ALL HALLOWS COLLEGE - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker commenced in the College in September, 1995. She worked 81 hours per fortnight at a rate of £3.78 per hour and was employed in a domestic capacity. In March, 1996, the worker was summoned to the matron's office and was dismissed. The worker claims that she was given no warning about the dismissal. The worker also claims that she was randomly selected for dismissal, and that this was done by placing the names of 3 cleaners in a hat and selecting one.
The Union referred the dispute to the Labour Court on 30th August, 1996, in accordance with Section 20(1), Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 30th September, 1996. The College submitted a written statement but did not attend the hearing.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker's record with the College had been satisfactory. She had received no warnings of any kind. The manner of choosing the worker for dismissal was disgraceful. She had longer service with the College than the other 2 cleaners. The College indicated that the situation might not be permanent. A colleague of the worker who was on sick leave was made redundant and it was decided to fill the post on a permanent basis. Instead of offering the post to the worker the College recruited 2 cleaners from an outside agency.
2. The College claims that the reason for the dismissal was re-structuring. However,
with the appointment of the 2 new cleaners the staffing level was brought back to the previous 6 operatives.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. At the time that the worker was employed the College housekeeper was retiring but remained on in a caretaker role. The new housekeeper made an assessment of operations in terms of staffing, working conditions etc. She concluded that the College was overstaffed and it was decided to terminate the worker's employment. This was necessary from the point of view of cost-control in the house keeping division.
RECOMMENDATION:
The College did not attend the Court hearing but it did submit a letter. While the claimant did get an explanation for her dismissal, the manner of her dismissal, her lack of contract of employment, and the method of her selection were entirely unsatisfactory.
In these circumstances, the Court awards the claimant the sum of £500 as compensation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
7th October, 1996______________________
C.O'N./S.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.