FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DUNNES STORES - AND - MANDATE DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed as a sales assistant in the Company's Quinnsboro Road, Bray branch for five months before her dismissal on the 4th of March, 1999. The Union states that contrary to the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994, she did not receive a written contract of employment. It also states that her Employer did not advise her of any disciplinary procedures which may have existed in the Company. The Union claims that, following the worker's dismissal on the 4th of March, 1999, local management refused to meet with the Union to discuss the dismissal. The Company then refused to attend a Rights Commissioner's investigation. The Union referred the issue 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 Company declined an invitation to attend the Labour Court on the 24th of May, 1999.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It is a fundamental requirement in all cases of dismissal that both the procedural and factual aspects of the events leading up to the termination of employment are closely examined in order to establish a case of fairness or otherwise. The procedural framework relied upon by the Company to effect dismissal was not known to the worker.
3. 2. Management totally disregarded the Company/Union collective agreement by refusing to meet with the Union or to attend the Rights Commissioners' service or the Labour Court. Such a fundamental breach of the agreement must bring into question, and seriously undermine, the fairness of a decision to dismiss.
3. 3. The worker has been denied an opportunity to deal with the allegations made against her. This seriously questions the reasonableness of the conclusion reached by the Employer. The Employer's failure to give the reasons for the worker's dismissal in writing implies that the Company is not totally convinced of the legitimacy of its position.
3. 4. The worker did not receive any formal warnings prior to her dismissal. An important consideration is whether the penalty of dismissal was proportionate to the alleged misconduct. Identical instances have occurred involving other members of staff which have not resulted in disciplinary action or in dismissal. Even if the worker was found to have committed a human error, it did not result in any actual loss to the Company.
3. 5. The behaviour of the Company and the manner in which it blatantly ignores standard industrial relations practice leaves a lot to be desired. Its attitude seriously undermines the strength and effectiveness of protective rights available to Irish workers.
3. 6. The Court is requested to find that the grounds used to effect the worker's dismissal are unfair and, in doing so, award her suitable compensation.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court was informed by letter that the Company would not be attending the hearing. It is regrettable that the Company decided not to attend or present a submission.
Based on the evidence before it, the Court is not satisfied that dismissal was justified in these circumstances. As the claimant has opted for compensation instead of re-instatement as a remedy, the Court recommends a payment of £700 as compensation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
2nd June, 1999______________________
DG/BCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.