FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : COMPUTER RESOURCES (REPRESENTED BY KENNY, STEPHENSON, CHAPMAN, SOLICITORS) - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Owens Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was employed by the Company as a receptionist from the 7th of January, 1998. She states that she left a permanent and pensionable position with another company to take up her new position. The worker claims that a meeting was scheduled for Friday the 20th of February, 1998, to discuss the approaching end of year busy period. At the meeting she was told that she was being dismissed with immediate effect and that she would be paid up to the end of March, 1998. The worker states that on Monday, the 23rd of February, 1998, the Company informed staff by e-mail that the worker had left the company and that the receptionist whom she had replaced would be returning to the company.
The worker referred a claim of unfair dismissal to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. The Company objected to the investigation. The worker then referred her claim to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. The Court investigated the complaint on the 25th of May, 1998. The Company did not attend the hearing but submitted a statement to the Court.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker concerned has been a receptionist for over 15 years and has a professional approach to her work. She has never received any verbal or written warnings concerning her work performance and has never been asked to leave any position she has held.
2. The worker believes that she did a very good job as receptionist for the company and was shocked and upset to be dismissed without warning at 5.20 p.m. on a Friday evening. She believes that her sudden departure from the company reflects badly on her and is a slur on her character.
3. The worker's dismissal occurred a few days after she queried the fact that her salary was lower than that agreed at her interview. The Company must also have planned to re-hire the previous receptionist before the 20th of February as a memo was sent to staff by e-mail on the next working day.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In the light of the worker's performance and the Company's requirements the Company determined that the worker was not suitable for the position and her employment was terminated on the 20th of February, 1998. She was paid five weeks' salary from that date in lieu of notice.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that the Employer in this dispute declined to attend the Court hearing but submitted a statement as to their position.
Having considered the evidence submitted, the Court is satisfied that the claimant was unfairly dismissed and awards a sum of £500 as compensation, which is based on the short time she was employed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
8th June, 1998______________________
D.G./S.G.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.