FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : K.C. PRODUCT PLACEMENT LIMITED - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY COOLOCK COMMUNITY LAW CENTRE) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a merchandising service agency which provides staff to display products in supermarkets nationwide. The worker was employed as a merchandiser from the 22nd of February, 2000. Her hours of work were from 9.00am to 12 noon three days per week. She was assigned to Dunnes Stores in the Northside Shopping Centre. The worker claims that upon her return from holidays on the 29th of May, 2000 she was dismissed. The Company states that the worker was not dismissed, but that it does not have work for her at the present time.
The worker referred a claim of alleged unfair dismissal to the Labour Court on the 6th of July, 2000, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. She agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on the 30th of August, 2000.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1. The worker concerned had a good relationship with her employer and endeavoured to carry out all of her duties to the best of her ability. When it was not possible to do the work she had been employed to do because of late deliveries, she helped out other employees with their work.
2. The claimant was employed from 9.00am to 12.00pm to merchandise cold meats. However, as the delivery was frequently late, it was not possible to place all of the product on the shelves before 12.00pm. The claimant brought this to the attention of her employer who agreed to try to have the goods delivered on time.
3. Upon the claimant's return from holidays, she was told that the Company did not have any work available for her. She had not received any prior warning and other employees had been told that she had left of her own accord. This has caused the worker great distress and she has found it impossible to secure further employment.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1. The Company has always found the claimant to be very obliging and willing to help cover for other staff when they were out sick. In return she was granted two weeks holidays, which were extended to three weeks, even though she was in the Company's employ for less than three months at the time.
2. The worker was aware that there was a problem with goods being delivered on time. She told the Company that she was unable to work after approximately 12.00pm and requested earlier deliveries. Unfortunately, due to the demands on the lorry driver, this was not possible to guarantee.
3. The Company's Area Manager tried to contact the worker during the third week of her holidays and left a message for her on her mobile telephone. The Company was under pressure to deal with the merchandising problem and assigned another worker who worked longer hours in the store to carry out this work. The Company did not dismiss the claimant but, unfortunately, does not have other suitable work available for her at the moment.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court recommends that the claimant be offered re-engagement in her former position on the hours of work which she indicated as suitable in her current circumstances (up to 2.00pm on each day of attendance).
Re-engagement should take effect within one week of the date of this recommendation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
7 September, 2000______________________
D.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.