FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 77, EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACT, 1998 PARTIES : SHERIDAN INSURANCE - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY JOHN C. KIERAN & SON SOLICITORS) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal under Section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed by the employer on a number of occasions from 1986 on both a part-time and full-time basis. The worker claims the following:-
In October, 1999, she commenced a one year leave of absence with the agreement of her employer. It was at all times a term and condition of her employment that her job would be held open for her, and she would return on the same terms and conditions as applied prior to the commencement of the leave of absence. (The employer claims she actually terminated her employment, and that a P45 issued confirming her date of leaving as 29th of October, 1999.)
On the 1st of December, 2000, she returned to work part time for 5 mornings per week. In March, 2001, her employer moved location from Slane to Navan. The worker claims that she was informed that she could not be employed on a part-time basis in the new location. She told the employer that because of her family situation she could not work full time, and was informed that her employment would be terminated on the 30th of April, 2001. The worker believes that she was discriminated against because of her gender, marital status, family status and age. She felt that she had no choice except to tender her resignation, and did so on the 2nd of March, 2001. The worker believes that she was constructively dismissed.
The worker referred her case to the Labour Court on the 31st of August, 2001, in accordance with Section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 11th of January, 2002, in Navan. The following is the Court's Determination:-
DETERMINATION:
It would appear from the information supplied to the Court that there may have been some misunderstanding in relation to a key interview held between the claimant and her employer's representative.
It is unfortunate that this dispute has arisen and is now before the Court, given the significant number of years of good working relations between the parties. The employee was held in high esteem by her employer and she herself enjoyed working in that environment.
There is no doubt that the employee was hurt and angry as a result of how she perceived the interview with her employer's representative. It is equally clear to the Court that the employer still holds her in high esteem and has accepted that there may have been issues raised with her that were inappropriate at that interview.
It is the Court's view that this dispute need not have arisen, given that the employer is saying that the employee could have continued to work the hours she was working for him and that the employee is saying she had not indicated that she could not work during the summer months, both disputed issues following the interview.
Taking into account the background to this case, the Court recommends that the employer re-instate the employee in her employment and that the employee accepts such a proposal.
In the event of either party being of the view that this is not feasible, then the Court recommends that the employer pay the employee the equivalent of three months' salary in compensation, in full and final settlement of her claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
11th February, 2002______________________
CON/CCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.