FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : PARK PRINTING LIMITED - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Alleged constructive dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker commenced employment on the 24th of November, 1997. At the interview for the job, the Company claims that the worker was made aware of the terms and conditions of her employment, including salary, holidays and sick leave. The worker's job included answering the telephone, typing and looking after invoices.
The worker did not attend the Labour Court hearing. In a letter to the Court she claimed the following:- she was not on a 6 months' trial but was made permanent by a female supervisor. The supervisor was abusive to her, as was the Company manager (details supplied to the Court). The heating system in the office did not work, the lunch room was dirty and various office equipment, e.g., photocopier did not work. The worker also claims that she was not fully paid for her time worked. She handed in her notice on the 9th of January, 1998.
The worker referred her case to the Labour Court on the 5th of March, 1998, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 22nd of May, 1998. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was paid all monies due to her. She was deducted 2 days' pay because she had been absent on sick leave. She made no complaint at the time of the deduction. Her final pay packet was also fully explained to her.
2. The worker handed in her notice of her own free will. It was not, as she claims, as a result of any abuse she suffered at work. One reason that her notice was accepted quickly was because she had twice previously told a colleague that she was going to leave. She also got into a row with another member of staff and reduced the member to tears.
3. The worker was not good at her job. Her typing was inaccurate. She gave wrong messages to customers and she was still making mistakes with invoices on her last day of employment.
RECOMMENDATION:
A hearing in this case had previously been arranged at which the claimant failed to attend without any prior notification. Nonetheless, a further hearing was arranged at the request of the claimant on confirmation by her that she would attend and present her case. Again, the claimant failed to attend the hearing without any prior notification or explanation.
The Court proceeded to investigate the claim on the basis of the written submission of the claimant, and the written and oral submissions of the Company. Based on the information before it, the Court is satisfied that the complaints made by the claimant are without merit or foundation.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
8th June, 1998______________________
C.O'N./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.