FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : LEOPARDSTOWN CLUB LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR870/99/MR.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed by the Company as a cleaner for the last ten years. She was required to work five days prior to each racemeeting and also on the day of the meeting. However, during the April racemeeting, the worker claims that she confused the days she was required to work and that when she subsequently contacted management was informed that she had been dismissed.
The Company states that the claimant's attendance record was poor and that she had been warned about it on many occasions. It claims that her dismissal was justified.
The dispute was the subject of a Rights Commissioner's hearing which took place on the 9th March, 2000. The following is the Rights Commissioner's recommendation:-
"I recommend that the Company should pay the worker a once-off lump sum of £350 in full and final settlement of this dispute."
The Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 24th July, 2000 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 19th September, 2000.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was employed for ten years and during this time did not receive a written warning regarding her absences.
2. Management's decision to dismiss the worker was unreasonable and unfair.
3. Dismissal should be the last option rather than the first option. Management did not apply fair procedure in this case.
4. The Union is seeking £3,000 compensation for the worker's unfair dismissal.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker has a history of lates, absences and of leaving her employment early without permission.
2. The worker was given written and verbal warnings regarding her attendance record.
3. The claimant's actions left the Company without any cover and effectively she abandoned her employment.
4. The worker was not unfairly dismissed. She contributed 100% to her own dismissal and is not entitled to any compensation.
DECISION:
The Court has considered all aspects of this appeal of the Rights Commissioner's recommendation concerning a claim for alleged unfair dismissal; the appellant has not sought reinstatement but an increase in the amount of compensation awarded.
The Court is of the view that for complete fairness in this case, the procedures used by the company were not satisfactory. By the same token the employee acted in a manner that was not reasonable in the circumstances.
The Court recommends that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation should be amended and that a payment of £500 should be paid in full and final settlement of this claim. Therefore, the appeal is upheld.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
5 October, 2000______________________
LW/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.