FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : CLEAN GLEAM (REPRESENTED BY TOM HOGAN, B.L. INSTRUCTED BY JOHN GLYNN & COMPANY (SOLICITORS)) - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed for four years as a supervisor with a contract cleaning company in Tallaght Community School. In January, 1999, the contract was taken over by Clean Gleam and all staff retained by the new owner.
The worker states that when she returned to work in August, 1999, following school holidays, she was informed by management that her services were no longer required and that her employment was terminated. The worker claims that she was unfairly dismissed.
Management states that it had no alternative but to terminate the worker's employment as her behaviour at work was leading to friction among other staff members.
The worker sought the services of a Rights Commissioner to resolve the matter but the Company was not agreeable to this proposal. The worker referred the dispute under Section 20 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 to the Labour Court on the 18th of October, 1999, and agreed to be bound by the Court's decision.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker claims that she has been unfairly treated by the Company. She received no written or verbal warnings concerning her work performance.
2. The worker was happy and contented in her job and got on well with everyone she worked with.
3. When the new owner took over, he gave all the staff a pay rise and provided money for a meal and drinks as a way of thanking the staff.
4. Management indicated to the worker that she would be made Area Supervisor as soon as more contracts were obtained.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker concerned was given several verbal warnings concerning her behaviour towards other staff members.
2. The worker made serious allegations concerning the Company's tax affairs which were totally untrue.
3. The Company had no alternative by to terminate the worker's employment as she was found to be unsuitable for the post of supervisor.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully evaluated the submissions of the parties in this case.
The Court does not accept that the claimant was guilty of wrongdoing which would justify her dismissal. The Court has also had regard to the provisions of the Code of Practice on Disciplinary Procedures (S.I. No. 117 of 1996), made under Section 42 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. It is clear that the provisions of this code were not observed by the Employer in relation to the dismissal of the claimant.
The Court finds that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. Taking all of the circumstances into account, the Court considers compensation to be the appropriate remedy in this case. The Court recommends that the claimant be paid compensation in the amount of £1,000, in full and final settlement of all claims against the employer arising from her dismissal.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
3rd February, 2000.______________________
LW/BCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.