FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : FAULKNER EXPORT PACKAGING LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY AEDAMAR KIRRANE B.L. INSTRUCTED BY HUSSEY AND O'HIGGINS, SOLICITORS) - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company as a general operative on the 12th June, 1995. She was dismissed on the 8th March, 1996. The worker claimed that her dismissal was unfair and sought to refer the dispute to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. The Company rejected the claim of unfair dismissal and objected to such an investigation. On the 20th May, 1996 the worker referred the dispute to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the 14th August, 1996.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In October, 1995 the worker was involved in a car accident on her way home from work. She returned to work two days later but felt unwell and suffered a certain amount of pain. Subsequently she was absent from work for a few days.
2. On her return to work the employee concerned still experienced pain and was forced to take pain killing tablets. On reporting to her doctor he diagnosed a back injury and recommended that she take a week off work. She was out of work through illness on Friday 8th March and submitted a medical certificate for the day.
3. The Company agreed to give the worker a week's holiday commencing on the 11th March but during this time Management sent the worker a letter terminating her employment. On enquiring by phone as to the reasons for her dismissal none was forthcoming. The worker was arbitrarily and unfairly dismissed without warnings and seeks appropriate redress.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The worker concerned was employed on a production team consisting of 4/5 workers. Her participation was essential in order that most tasks could be completed. The worker's attendance record was extremely poor (details to the Court). Specific explanations or sick notes for absences were not provided. Management spoke to the worker on a number of occasions, however her attendance at work did not improve.
2. The Company agreed to give the worker a week's holiday in order to sort out her attendance problems. The holiday was due to commence on the 11th March. However the worker again failed to report for work on Friday 8th March. Management decided at this point to dismiss the worker with immediate effect.
3. The Company treated the worker in a very fair and reasonable manner and was lenient with her on many occasions, often allowing her to take sick leave as a holiday rather than reducing her pay. In the circumstances the Company was left with no alternative but to dismiss the worker.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court considered carefully the written and oral submissions made by the parties.
Based on the information before it, the Court is of the view that the Company's action, in dismissing the claimant, was precipitative and that the manner of her dismissal was totally unacceptable.
The Court, therefore, recommends that the claimant be reinstated forthwith, by the Company.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
2nd September, 1996______________________
T.O'D./S.G/.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.