LCR16569

BACKGROUND:

2. The worker was employed initially from the 24th of March, 1997 to 12th of May, 1998 when he resigned from the Company. He was re-employed as a technical support agent from the 13th of April, 1999 to the 6th of September, 1999.

The worker claims that he was unfairly dismissed despite the fact that he performed his work to the highest standards. He claims that he received no written or verbal warnings concerning his work performance. The worker also alleges that he was harassed continuously while employed by the Company.

The Company rejects the worker's allegations and states that the worker resigned his position on the 12th of May, 1998. He was re-employed on the 13th of April, 1999 and his employment was terminated on the 6th of September, 1999. The Company claims that it had no option but to terminate the worker's employment because of his repeated refusal to carry out his normal duties as instructed by management. The worker also had his claim before the Employment Appeals Tribunal.

The worker referred the dispute to the Labour Court under Section 20 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on the 19th of July, 2000.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. The worker was given no notice or reason why his employment was terminated.

2. The worker claims that he was never given any written or verbal warning concerning his work performance.

3. The worker was happy and contented in his work and got on well with those he worked with.

4. The worker states that he was harassed continuously while employed by the Company.

COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. The Company had no alternative but to terminate the worker's employment as he refused to carryout his duties as instructed.

2. The claimant had, on a number of occasions, requested that his employment be terminated so he could qualify for unemployment benefit.

3. In his proceedings before the Employment Appeals Tribunal, the claimant stated that his health no longer allowed him to work.

4. The Company rejects the allegations that the worker was subjected to any type of harassment while in its employment.


RECOMMENDATION:

The Court has carefully evaluated the submissions made by the parties in this case.

Having regard to all of the circumstances, the Court is satisfied that the employer did not act unfairly in terminating the claimant's employment. In particular, the Court accepts that at the date of dismissal the employer acted in the reasonable belief that the claimant wished to have his employment brought to an end. It is also clear that at that date, and since, the claimant was unable, for medical reasons, to continue in the position in which he was employed.

The Court recommends that the claimant should now accept that he was not unfairly dismissed.



Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Kevin Duffy
26th July, 2000.______________________
LW/BCDeputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.