FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ROCHES STORES, BLANCHARDSTOWN (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - MANDATE DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Alleged constructive dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns one worker who was employed in the capacity of temporary sales assistant, allocated to the stockroom area, at the Company's Blanchardstown store, from the 6th November, 1999 to the 3rd December, 1999. The Union claims that, following a dispute in relation to overtime arrangements and subsequent alleged verbal abuse of him by his supervisor, the worker was left with no alternative but to resign his position, which he did, on the 24th November. At a meeting between the parties, on the 1st December, the Union claimed that the worker's resignation had been tendered "in the heat of the moment" and, accordingly, that he wished to withdraw it. The Company did not concur with the Union's view that the resignation was in the heat of the moment and it indicated that it would not allow him to withdraw it. The Company formally terminated the worker's employment, by reason of resignation, from the 3rd December. He was paid up to the 19th December. The Union referred the matter, to the Labour Court, on the 25th January, 2000, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court investigated the dispute, on the 14th June, 2000, the earliest date convenient to both parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker resigned his post in the heat of the moment. The Company is obliged, under the Grievance/Disciplinary procedure, to make every effort to resolve problems that may arise. This is a matter that could have been resolved amicably.
2. Given that the worker was not given a fair chance, he was, therefore, wrongfully dismissed. It has been established in the UK Courts that "a resignation tendered in the heat of the moment is one of the exceptions to the rule that an employer is entitled to immediately accept an act of resignation". This view on resignations has been upheld by the Employment Appeals Tribunal. Clearly, in this case, the worker encountered a number of difficulties in his employment, and the Company did not act in accordance with its own procedures. The worker should, therefore, be compensated for wrongful dismissal.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker, who was employed in a strictly temporary capacity, resigned of his own free will.
2. Following his request to withdraw his resignation, the Company offered him the opportunity of full representation by both staff representatives and his Union at separate meetings. The Company gave the matter full consideration and its decision not to accept the withdrawal of the worker's resignation was consistent with Company policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has taken into consideration the written and oral submissions of both sides. The Court is of the view that the claimant did not resign "in the heat of the moment", but that he submitted his resignation in writing to the appropriate authority after due opportunity to consider the matter. Additionally, the Court notes that the Company gave consideration to the request for withdrawal of the resignation following representation by the claimant and his representatives.
Accordingly, the Court does not support the claim that the worker was unfairly dismissed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
3rd July, 2000______________________
MK/MKDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.