FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : GLOBETROTTERS TOURIST HOSTEL - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. RC31/97.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed by the hostel to service dormitory rooms, from the 27th of May, 1996 until her dismissal on the 10th of January, 1997. She claimed that her dismissal followed an enquiry by her concerning Social Welfare contributions, that she was given no reason for her dismissal and that, accordingly, she was unfairly dismissed.
The employer's position was that the worker had been employed on a temporary basis, had been given verbal warnings by her supervisor concerning the quality of her work and had refused to work particular shifts. The employer also alleged that there had been a number of complaints from guests regarding the security of the rooms under her control during her shifts. The worker denied that she had been employed on a temporary basis or that she had been issued with any warnings. She also rejected all allegations concerning security matters.
The dispute was the subject of an investigation by a Rights Commissioner who found and recommended as follows:-
The evidence of both parties in this case was contradictory. I am, however, satisfied that the employer reached a conclusion that the claimant was unsuitable to the requirements of his establishment, and that he had reasonable grounds for doing so.
Consequently, I am of the opinion, that the worker's dismissal was not unfair and I, therefore, recommend that her claim in that regard, fails.
As a settlement of this dispute, however, I further recommend that the employer, purely as a gesture of goodwill and without prejudice or precedent, pay the worker an ex-gratia lump sum of £100 which she should accept in full and final settlement of her claim.
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioners Recommendation).
The worker appealed the Rights Commissioners Recommendation to the Labour Court on the 7th of July, 1997, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
The Court heard the appeal on the 18th of August, 1997.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The dismissal only arose following an enquiry by the worker concerning her Social Welfare contributions.
2. The worker was available at almost all times that she was asked to work. She even worked over the Christmas period when she was on certified sick leave.
3. There were no grounds for complaints about her performance. There were up to three workers involved in the cleaning of the showers about which complaints were made by management.
4. Regarding the matter of personal effects that went missing from guests' rooms, other members of staff had access to those rooms at the same time as the worker. The worker was prepared to co-operate with the Gardai, subsequently.
5. The worker was prepared to provide a reference but was not asked to do so.
6. During the course of the Rights Commissioner's investigation a side-conference took place between the Company representative and the Rights Commissioner, following which the Rights Commissioner appeared to be biased against the worker. Consequently, she was not granted a fair hearing. The £100 cheque was received from the employer after the worker had lodged her appeal against the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Rights Commissioner recommended the payment of £100 as a gesture of goodwill. This has been paid and accepted by the worker.
2. The worker was employed on the understanding that she would produce a reference from her previous employer. Although she claimed to have such a reference, she failed to produce it despite having been asked to do so repeatedly.
3. The worker was given three verbal warnings by her supervisor concerning the quality of her work. She also refused to work particular shifts.
4. She was warned a number of times regarding the security of the rooms under her control. Guests effects went missing from these rooms on numerous occasions. On one such occasion the guests called the Gardai and the worker was interviewed. She was the common denominator in all such incidents. There has been no such incident since her employment ceased.
5. There was a clear breach of trust and security on the part of the worker and, given the other warnings she received and her own request for temporary employment, it was deemed prudent to let her go.
6. The issue of Social Welfare deductions has no relevance to the case. The worker's records were computerised and the correct deductions were made.
DECISION:
While the Rights Commissioner found that the Employer had reached a conclusion "that the claimant was unsuitable to the requirements of his establishment and that he had reasonable grounds for doing so", the Court is not satisfied that sufficient evidence was presented to it to support this conclusion.
The Court, therefore, upholds the appeal and finds that the dismissal was unfair.
The Court recommends that the Employer pay the Claimant £150 in compensation (£50 in addition to the £100 already paid).
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
5th of September, 1997______________________
M.K./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.