FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MOORE ENTERPRISES LIMITED - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Owens Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the contract cleaning business and employs 15 full-time and approximately 150 part-time workers. The worker concerned commenced employment in the office administration area on the 11th November, 1996. She was dismissed on the 15th November, 1996. The worker claimed that she was unfairly dismissed. Management rejected the claim. On the 16th June, 1997 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 23rd July, 1997.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was offered the position following an interview with the Managing Director which was held on 30th October, 1996. The salary agreed was £200 which was to be reviewed after a period of time. The worker was advised that she would be trained on micropay and customer orders.
2. On the 15th November Management advised the worker that the Company had overestimated its budget for the year and could only afford to employ a junior in the office. When the worker enquired as to what the salary would be for the junior position she was not given the option of applying for that job. The worker was advised she would be given a few weeks to find alternative work.
3. While the worker succeeded in obtaining her former position back she was re-employed on a lower salary than that offered to her prior to leaving to take up the position at Moore Enterprises.
4. The Managing Director did not contact the worker to explain why she was dismissed.
5. The post was subsequently readvertised at a higher salary.
6. The worker was treated in an arbitrary and unfair fashion. She seeks appropriate redress.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. When the Managing Director interviewed the worker for the position a starting date and salary were agreed. It was explained to the worker that she would be employed on a trial basis.
2. Following assessment of the worker Management decided that she was not suitable for the position. The office administrator explained the situation to the worker and she was issued with one week's notice.
3. The post which was advertised in February, 1997 was not the one occupied by the worker. That position was filled.
4. The worker received her statutory entitlements. She was treated in a reasonable manner and was not unfairly dismissed.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court having considered the submissions of the parties is of the view that the termination of employment was unfair and unjustified.
It is the Court's Recommendation that the claimant be paid a sum of £500 by way of compensation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
25th July, 1997______________________
T.O'D./S.G.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.