FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9); INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT; 1969 PARTIES : WEST OF IRELAND ALZHEIMER FOUNDATION (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: Mr. Somers |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioners Recommendation IR 2240/00/GF
BACKGROUND:
2. The Foundation was founded in 1994. Its objectives were to establish in the West of Ireland an organisation that provides home respite for carers and Alzheimer patients in their own homes. The worker concerned was one of a number of carers who was sent to the home of an Alzheimer sufferer for a certain number of hours each week. She was one of 10 people hired on a 52-week contract on the 12th of April, 1999. The contract expired on the 6th of April, 2000. The 10 employees were interviewed with regard to an extension of the contract and 5 were retained. The worker concerned was not one of the 5 retained although she claims that all 10 employees were told that they would be re-hired.
The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner and his findings and decision are as follows:
"I believe the claimant was misled by the C.E. supervisor and this was unfortunate. It emerged during the hearing that she was a committed care worker. However, on the evidence of the Foundation senior person, that he made the decision not to issue a new contract to the claimant, I cannot say the dismissal was unfair and I find for the respondent."
The Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 17th of January, 2001, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 8th of May, 2001, in Athlone, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker had spoken to the scheme supervisor some time in advance of the end of her contract and was told that she would be given a new contract. When she was told that her contract would not be renewed, the worker spoke to the wages clerk in Claremorris and was told that she was listed for work on the new scheme.
2. The interview, which was conducted by the supervisor and the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Foundation, was more of a casual discussion that a formal interview. All 10 employees believed that they would be re-hired for the new scheme.
3. The worker was accused of not doing her work properly, which was untrue. The Foundation's claim that there was not enough work for the 10 employees (citing letters from various families) is untrue, as the worker had a patient at the time. These letters were solicited from the families after the worker was dismissed.
FOUNDATION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was hired on a 52-week contract which expired on the 6th of April, 2000. The worker signed a statement to that effect (copy supplied to the Court).
2. Only five of the 10 employees were re-hired as there was not sufficient work for all 10.
3. The only person who could have extended the worker's contract was the CEO and he has confirmed that he did not do so.
DECISION:
Having considered all aspects of this claim, the Court is of the view that the standards and procedures adopted by the Foundation to re-appoint employees for another year was far below professional standards; an expectation was raised that the appellant would have her contract renewed.
Therefore, the Court recommends that she should be paid £600 (761.84 euroes) in compensation for not attaining such a renewed contract. The Court also recommends that when the next programme commences, the appellant should be included on that programme.
The appeal of the Rights Commissioner's recommendation is hereby upheld.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
21st May, 2001______________________
CONDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.