FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : NEVBURY LIMITED - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Owens Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. 530/96.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker commenced employment with the Company, which is involved in the taxi business, as a radio controller operator on 21st December, 1995. She claims that she was unfairly dismissed on 12th September, 1996.
The worker claims that she rang her employer on 30th August, 1996 to say that she was unwell and would not be able to work her next three shifts (covering three days). As she was not being paid sick leave, she asked if she could take the week as her second weeks' holiday. She claims that the Company agreed to this, but when she called on the 5th September to collect her pay she was informed that she could not treat the period as annual leave. On 12th September, the worker phoned the Company to say she would return to work but was told that she had been replaced. The Company denies that it dismissed the worker and that, in fact, she telephoned the Company on 12th September to say that she could not continue with the job due to her illness.
The worker referred her case to a Rights Commissioner who concluded that the dismissal was unfair:-
"I so find and recommend payment of compensation in amount of £1,000(including payment in lieu of notice and failure by the employer under the Terms and Conditions (Information) Act, 1994."
The Company appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 28th April, 1997, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 14th July, 1997.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was unfit for work on the week of 30th August, 1996. She has a letter from her doctor to prove this. She was told that she could take the week as annual leave as the Company would not pay her sick leave. However, the Company changed its mind when she went to collect her week's pay.
2. The worker did not tell the Company that she wished to resign her position, as it claims. She was given no job contract or conditions of employment. The Company did not seek a medical certificate. The worker was ready to return to work, although still unfit.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was not dismissed by the Company. She telephoned the Company on the 12th September to say that, because of her medical condition, she would not be returning to her job. The Company tried to contact the worker during the two weeks she was absent (from 30th August) but was unable to do so. It is not policy in the Company to allow employees to take holiday leave with pay instead of sick leave. There are no grounds for the Rights Commissioner to award compensation to the worker.
DECISION:
The Court, having considered the submissions of the parties and the oral evidence given at the hearing, finds that no grounds have been adduced to warrant changing the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation. The Court rejects the appeal and so deceides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
22nd July, 1997______________________
C.O'N./D.T.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.