FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ICG TRAVEL - AND - TWO WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns two workers who were employed by the Company.
The Company is a subsidiary of Irish Continental Group. One worker was employed
by the Company from the 6th of March, 2000 to the 16th of February, 2001, as a
leisure travel consultant. The other worker was employed by the Company as a senior
leisure travel consultant from the 3rd of April, 2000 to the 12th of February, 2001.
Both workers claim they were unfairly dismissed and referred the matter to the Labour
Court on the 25th of June, 2001, under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1969. The Court investigated the dispute on the 10th of October, 2001. The Company
did not attend the hearing. In a letter addressed to the Court dated the 21st of
September, 2001, the Company stated that it did not recognise a Union and it was on
that basis that it would not be in attendance at the hearing.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company treated these two young women in an obnoxious and unacceptable fashion.
2. Their performance at work was not in any way suspect. In November, the Company assured them of its confidence in their ability and advised them that it looked forward to increasing their remuneration package over time.
3. The nature of this dismissal was calculated to inflict the highest level of trauma on its victims and create a ripple effect on the other two members of staff.
4. Such treatment by an employer towards two young members of the workforce could have the effect of permanently damaging their career prospects.
5. This is the type of business where reputation and reliability are paramount.
6. The references received by the workers from the Company accurately reflect their value as hardworking, diligent and skilful employees.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court regrets that the employer failed to attend the hearing to investigate this dispute. The employer did furnish the Court with a written statement setting out its version of the events surrounding the dismissal of the claimants. However, the claimants comprehensively rebutted the points made by the employer in justification of the dismissals. Further, the Court notes that the contents of the references with which the claimants were issued do not support the allegations made to justify their dismissal.
On the uncontradicted oral evidence before it, the Court is satisfied that the Company's actions in dismissing the claimants was arbitrary and unfair and fell far short of the standard expected of a reasonable employer.
In all the circumstances of this case, the Court recommends that the Company pays each of the claimants a severance payment equal to three months' salary in full and final settlement of all claims arising from their dismissal.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
25th October, 2001______________________
HMCD/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Helena McDermott, Court Secretary.