FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : USHER INSULATIONS LIMITED - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker commenced employment with the Company as a general operative in February, 1998. He was subsequently dismissed in June, 1998.
The worker claims that the manner of his dismissal was unfair. He states that he was given no warning prior to his dismissal. The Company claims that following a number of warnings, both verbal and written, the worker continued to be absent from work. It had no alternative but to dismiss him.
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. The Court investigated the dispute on the 2nd of October, 1998.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker suffers from a medical condition and has to attend the doctor from time to time.
2. The worker obtained medical certificates any time he was absent from work.
3. On the date he was dismissed the worker had a medical certificate which certified him for his absence on the previous day.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company had no option but to dismiss the worker because of his poor attendance record.
2. During his period of employment with the Company the worker missed several days from work without any explanation.
3. The worker was given both written and verbal warnings regarding his attendance record.
4. The Company is a small sub-contracting business. It cannot afford to have staff missing on a casual basis.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions made by the parties.
The Employer acknowledged that the claimant had no contract of employment and that no Grievance Procedure was in place within the Company.
While it is clear that the claimant contributed to his own dismissal, the Court finds that the manner of dismissal of the claimant was unfair.
The Court, therefore, recommends that the Company pay the claimant £150 in compensation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
9th October, 1998______________________
L.W./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.