FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : CLASSIC MARKETING - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a worker who commenced employment on the 10th May, 1999 as a Sales Co-ordinator. The worker alleges that she was dismissed on the 25th April, 2000. She claimed that her dismissal was unfair and sought to refer it to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. The Company objected to such a referral. On the 22nd August, 2000 the worker referred a complaint to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the 28th September, 2000.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker concerned was in hospital in February, 2000 to undergo a serious operation. She was out of work for 9 weeks. When she returned to work she was dismissed.
2. While in the Company's employment, the worker enjoyed her job, was a dedicated employee, worked long hours, without overtime or paid time off and there were no complaints from Management about her work performance.
3. While the worker was on sick leave, recuperating, she forwarded all medical certificates to the Department of Social Welfare. She received a letter from the Company on the 28th March, 2000 confirming that her job was available on her return to work.
4. The worker's return date was 25th April, 2000. She was asked to report early (between 8.00 - 8.30 AM on the 25th to meet Management. At this meeting, the worker was informed that her employment was terminating. She was shocked at the manner of the termination of her employment. The Company has employed many temporary employees since, some of whom undertook work which had been done by the claimant. The Company also appointed a Purchasing Officer, a post the claimant was qualified to fill.
5. The worker feels that she has wasted a year of her working life and has suffered from stress as a result of losing her job. She was treated in a most unfair and unjust manner and seeks appropriate redress.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company accepts that the worker was a good and conscientious employee.
2. The Company sustained substantial losses and had to restructure its operations. This included the deletion of a number of client accounts (some of which were the claimant's work) which were loss making. A decision was made to reduce the number of Sales Co-ordinators. The Company had to declare one worker redundant and when all factors were considered, the claimant was selected.
3. It was decided not to inform the worker until she was fully recovered and had returned to work. At the meeting of the 25th April, the situation was explained to her and all her questions were answered. The Company regrets having had to make the worker redundant. It had no choice and had no suitable alternative employment to offer her.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given consideration to all aspects of this case. The Court is satisfied that a genuine redundancy situation existed in the Company in April, 2000 and that the worker was accordingly made redundant. The Court notes the high esteem in which the Company held the worker and that a suitable reference is available if requested by the worker.
The Court recommends that a severance payment of £600 should be paid to the worker in full and final settlement of this claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
5 October, 2000______________________
TOD/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.