FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : NORTH STAR HOTEL (REPRESENTED BY GLEESON, MCGRATH BALDWIN, SOLICITORS) - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. 157/99JH.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns one worker who was employed on cleaning duties by the Hotel, from the 27th of August, 1998 until her dismissal on the 20th of February, 1999. The Hotel claims that the worker was dismissed arising from a number of incidents and difficulties involving her and more senior staff. The worker claims that her dismissal was unfair and that she had received no prior written or verbal warnings. The matter was the subject of an investigation by a Rights Commissioner who found that the account of all incidents cited by the employer was based on hearsay which was contradicted by the worker. The Rights Commissioner found further that, while some difficulties may well have arisen as described and while there was clearly a dispute between the parties, there remained the matter of procedures. She concluded that the worker was entitled to be advised formally regarding her work performance and any difficulties arising and to an opportunity to give her response concerning such issues. The Rights Commissioner found that the worker was unfairly dismissed on procedural grounds and recommended that she receive £400 by way of compensation.
The worker appealed the Rights Commissioner's recommendation to the Labour Court, on the 1st of July, 1999 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on the 3rd of September, 1999.
HOTEL'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. An incident occurred in relation to the performance of the worker's duties arising from which she became argumentative with senior management in the Hotel foyer, in the presence of customers. It emerged, subsequently, that the worker had been abusive and intimidating to other members of staff previously. The Hotel manager felt that the most recent episode was the last straw in a series of incidents involving the worker, which included the taking of time off without prior approval and allegations by her, which were subsequently dropped, in relation to an alleged theft.
2. The worker is a person with a very short fuse who had an extremely bad attitude towards supervisors in the Hotel and, regardless of whether fellow workers or customers of the Hotel were present, was liable to flare up on being approached regarding her duties. In a Hotel which relies on the goodwill of the public, it is not possible to have somebody on staff who is liable to such behaviour. Under the circumstances, the Hotel felt it could not risk another episode such as the one which occurred in the foyer of the Hotel on the 12th of February, 1999.
3. The Hotel indicated to the worker that it is prepared to accept the findings of the Rights Commissioner and to settle the dispute on that basis.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Hotel's allegations of being abusive and argumentative are rejected.
2. The worker had to take time off to attend the hospital and her supervisor was kept informed in relation to this matter.
3. The worker's purse was stolen but she withdrew her complaint for the reason that it would have been impossible to attribute blame for the theft.
4. At no stage was the worker given any indication that her performance was not satisfactory and at no time was she informed that she was in any way jeopardising her future.
DECISION:
The Court is satisfied that the claimant was not supplied with a contract of employment, nor were appropriate procedures followed by the Company prior to her dismissal. The Court, therefore, upholds the conclusions and recommendation of the Rights commissioner including the award made.
In the circumstances the appeal is rejected.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
20th September, 1999______________________
M.K./D.T.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.