FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : KYLEMORE NURSING HOME - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Alleged constructive dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker joined the Home on the 7th of March, 1999, as a care assistant. He worked part-time only, mornings from 8.00 a.m. - 2.00 p.m. and occasional weekends. His work initially involved helping elderly residents and general care. The worker claims that in June he was moved from the floor area to work in the day centre and the kitchen area, and he believed that he would be paid more for this work.
On the 24th of June, the worker applied for a job as a laundry assistant in another nursing home. He claims that when the manager of the day centre in Kylemore found out about this, she was abusive to him. The Home claims that the worker did not report for work on the 26th and 27th of June, but in a letter of the 28th of June he decided he would return.
The worker left the Home on the 23rd of July, claiming that he was being constantly abused by the manager of the day centre, and that he was left with no choice but to resign. He referred his case to the Labour Court on the 11th of September, 1999, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 19th of October, 1999. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The manager of the day centre treated the worker badly. She critisised him in front of other workers which made him feel humiliated. She also told a co-worker his personal business. The worker received no apology.
2. The worker had expected to be paid more money for working in the kitchen, but he did not receive any. Other people working at the Home were paid more than he was.
HOME'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Home facilitated the worker with the roster he had. He did not inform the Home that he had gone to work in another nursing home. He was spoken to about this, but was allowed to return to work. The worker said that the incident was closed.
2. The worker did not raise the issue of being paid extra money for working in the kitchen. Staff are not paid extra for working in different areas of the Home.
3. The proprietor of the Home left several telephone messages for the worker to try to solve the problem, but he refused to speak to her.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court considered carefully the written and oral submissions made by the parties.
There was obviously a breakdown in relationships between this employee and the manager of the day care centre.
However, the Court is not satisfied that this warranted the claimant leaving his employment before giving his employer the opportunity to deal with the issue.
The Court, therefore, does not find that the case of constructive dismissal has been proven.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
1st November, 1999______________________
C.O'N./D.T.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.