FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DRUMHILLS NURSING HOME / MRS. JOAN O'LEARY - AND - MRS. ANGELA WHELAN DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Owens Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Alleged Unfair Dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker commenced her employment at the nursing home in September, 1996, in the capacity of full-time auxiliary nurse. She was dismissed on the 3rd of April, 1997. She claims that, at the time of her dismissal, she was informed that she would no longer be required as a result of a decline in patient numbers and that others were being let go also. Subsequently, she became aware of colleagues of hers with less service than herself whose employment had not been terminated. She also claims that she was given no notice or warning of any kind, in respect of her dismissal, by her employer and that, accordingly, her dismissal was unfair. The employer side rejects the worker's claims. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court, on the 15th of August, 1997 in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court carried out its investigation, in Waterford, on the 20th of January, 1998.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. At the time of her dismissal, the worker was informed that the dismissal was a result of decreasing numbers of patients in the home. She accepted the employer's reassurance that other members of staff were in the same situation as herself. However, she was surprised to find, subsequently, that other staff with less service were retained.
2. When the worker raised the matter of colleagues with less service being retained, the employer's response was that she was not entitled to any warning and that the provision of 'last in first out' did not apply in the home.
3. The employer refused to provide a reference when requested and this, along with the worker's dismissal without reason or notice, has caused her considerable distress and has damaged her reputation.
4. The employer's claim that the worker's performance was unsatisfactory is refuted. There had been no complaints at any time about her performance and she was, at all times, a diligent and conscientious worker.
5. The worker did not, as alleged, ask an off-duty colleague to work a particular day. The colleague came to the home of her own accord on that occasion to deliver messages to one of the patients and was a matter over which the worker had no control.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker had to be reprimanded on a number of occasions during the course of her employment. She had difficulty in carrying out her duties as directed by the supervisor or other individuals in charge. She had been given several oral warnings regarding this.
2. On the day of her dismissal, the worker requested an off-duty colleague to work that evening. This action was taken without authority and despite the fact that the worker was expressly forbidden to do so. When the matter was raised, subsequently, the worker stated that she was not prepared to take orders from her supervisor and she behaved in an abusive manner. Accordingly, there was no alternative but to dismiss her.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the evidence both written and oral and noting the considerable differences as to facts that exist between the parties, the Court has concluded that the claimant was unfairly dismissed in that she was not given adequate warning or reason. The Court, accordingly, recommends that the claimant be paid 1 week's pay in lieu of notice and £400 compensation for the distress caused. She should also be given a satisfactory reference.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
11th of February, 1998______________________
M.K./U.S.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.