FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : SOVEREIGN PRINTERS LIMITED - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company as a printers' assistant doing general duties in May, 1997. She was employed on a three day week at a wage rate of £3.50 per hour. The worker was dismissed on the 16th of September, 1997. She claimed that she was unfairly dismissed and sought to refer the issue to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. The Company objected to such an investigation. On the 21st of October, 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 13th of January, 1998.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was involved in a road traffic accident on the 7th of September, 1997. She sustained a fractured elbow necessitating a week's stay in hospital followed by a six week's recuperative period. She advised the Company by phone and offered to supply sick certificates.
2. The worker subsequently phoned the Company on a number of occasions enquiring if she could return to her job at the end of the six weeks. Eventually a member of staff told the worker she was being let go. The worker requested her P45 and sought a suitable reference. She received the P45 but no reference.
3. At no stage was the worker afforded the opportunity to speak directly with her employer concerning the termination of her employment. She was dismissed without notice, in an arbitrary and unfair manner and seeks appropriate redress.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is small and employs only 4 - 5 workers. Although it had one order to complete at the time of the worker's accident business subsequently deteriorated and orders which were envisaged did not materialise. The Company may have to place another worker on lay-off because of the lack of orders.
2. At the time of the phone call the employer was busy operating a machine to complete one order, other staff were not busy. The employer instructed a staff member to inform the claimant that her post would "probably not" be available at the end of the six weeks.
3. The claimant sought her P45 and the Company sent it to her. By taking this action the worker effected her own dismissal.
RECOMMENDATION:
There is a well established obligation on employers to have in place satisfactory procedures for ensuring that employees are aware of the terms of their employment and the circumstances in which it can be brought to an end. In this case the employer totally failed to meet that obligation. This, in the Court's view, contributed to the events which gave rise to this claim.
The Court is satisfied that the claimant was dismissed and that the manner of her dismissal fell short of the standards that would be expected of a reasonable employer. In these circumstances the Court finds that the dismissal was unfair and recommends that the claimant be paid compensation in the amount of £200 in full and final settlement of the claim and be provided with a reference.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
20th January, 1998______________________
T.O'D./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.