FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9); INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT; 1969 PARTIES : CAMPBELL CATERING (REPRESENTED BY MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES (IRELAND) LIMITED - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR456/00/JH.
BACKGROUND:
2. The appeal concerns a worker who commenced employment with the Company at its IBM site in Clonee, Co. Meath on the 5th October, 1999. His salary was £16,000 p.a. as a Chef de Partie. He also received a shift allowance of approximately £5,500 p.a. bringing his total wage to £21,500 p.a. The worker claimed he was dismissed on the 25th January, 2000. He claimed that his dismissal was unfair and referred the issue to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. The Rights Commissioner investigated the dispute on the 11th May, 2000. The Company did not attend the hearing claiming that it did not receive notification of the date. On the 18th May 2000 the Rights Commissioner issued her recommendation as follows:
"On the basis of the available evidence the worker was dismissed. His dismissal was unfair .He should receive £1500 compensation in full settlement of his claim for dismissal."
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's recommendation).
On the 25th May, 2000 the Company appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court. The Court heard the appeal on the 25th August, 2000.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker concerned was an excellent employee and the Company wished to retain him in the employment. The last thing Management wanted to do, in an exceptionally difficult catering employment market, was to lose a good employee such as the worker. He was not asked to take a cut in wages.
2. The Company did not send the worker home on the 24th January. The Site Manager confirms that he had a conversation with the worker to the effect that he would like the worker's wife to come in at some stage to meet him.The Site Manager believes that he had a further conversation with the worker later that afternoon,whilst the claimant was at work, that both himself and his wife would be coming in together on Tuesday morning to meet the Site Manager.
3. During the meeting with the claimant the Site Manager confirmed the Company wished to formalise arrangements and sort out the worker's contract of employment, hours, pay, etc. The Site Manager also stated that the Company was more than happy with the worker's performance. The worker stated he was happy working in the Company.
4. The worker then enquired about the Site Manager's discussion with his wife and was told that she was a separate employee and the Site Manager would not discuss this. He acknowledged that the worker would wish to speak to his wife about her meeting. The worker stated that he could revert back to the Site Manager if anything changed. The worker did not do so. The next the Site Manager knew was that the worker was leaving the employment.
5. If the worker felt that he was unfairly treated in any way, he was free to take the issue up with any level of Management in the Company. He did not do so. The worker was not dismissed. He chose to resign his employment by failing to report for work after his meeting with the Site Manager on the 25th January, 2000.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS
3. 1. The worker was very happy in the employment, the shifts suited him and he lived near the site. He was asked to take a cut in wages and requested to see the Area Manager to discuss the issue, though she was on site no meeting took place.
2. On the 19 th January, 2000 (Wednesday) the worker's wife ( who was also employed on site as a Chef de Partie ) was very ill and he stayed at home with her on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday. On return to work on Monday 24 th January, the worker was told to go home and return on Tuesday for a meeting with the new Site Manager. The worker had no dealings with him prior to this meeting. At the meeting the worker was told to take a couple of weeks to think about whether to stay on or transfer to another site. However he received his P45 within a week and understood this to mean that he had been let go.
3. The worker was treated in a most unfair fashion and was arbitrarily dismissed. He only secured intermittent work for a period after the dismissal and found it very difficult to meet financial commitments.
DECISION:
The Court concurs with the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner and accepts that his dismissal was unfair. Therefore, the Court upholds the Rights Commissioner's recommendation and dismisses the company's appeal.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
14 September, 2000.______________________
TOD/BC
Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.