FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : FW WOODS LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY CONNELLAN SOLICITORS) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY THOMAS K MADDEN & COMPANY SOLICITORS) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed as a Bakery Assistant from the 6th of April, 1999 and was dismissed on the 8th of June, 1999. The claimant states that she was not given either a written or verbal warning concerning her work performance. The worker claims that her dismissal was unfair.
The Company states that the worker was on probation. It also claims that the worker failed to report for work on Saturday, the 5th of June, 1999. No explanation or medical certificate was provided at that time. The Company had no option but to dismiss the worker because she did not reach the standard required.
The worker referred the dispute to the Labour Court on the 8th of November, 1999 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 11th of October, 2000 (the earliest date suitable to the parties).
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker did not receive any written or verbal warnings concerning her work performance. She was upset when informed that her employment was being terminated.
2. The dismissal was entirely unwarranted and without justification.
3. The worker was happy and contented in her job and expected her career to continue with this employer.
4. Management has failed to comply with the relevant legislation concerning the employment of workers.
5. A medical certificate had been given to the employer to cover the worker's absence on the 5th June, 1999.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is Company policy that all staff are subject to the completion of a satisfactory probationary period.
2. The worker was treated no differently to other employees in the Company.
3. The claimant failed to furnish a medical certificate for her absence on Saturday, the 5th of June, 1999.
4. The worker did not disclose on her application form that she had a pre-existing medical condition.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given consideration to the written and oral presentation of both parties.
The Court is of the view that the worker was dismissed without just cause.
The procedures adopted by management in dealing with absence did not accord with standard procedures.
The Court considers that the worker was unfairly dismissed and recommends that she should be paid four weeks pay in full and final settlement of this claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
20th October, 2000______________________
LW/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.