FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MARLBOROUGH GROUP (REPRESENTED BY ERNST & YOUNG) - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Appeal Against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR4944/01/GF.
BACKGROUND:
2. The claimant was appointed as Accounts Manager with Marlborough Group Limited in January, 2001. His duties involved bringing a workforce from Romania to work in Kerry Foods, Shillelagh, Co. Wicklow, a client of Marlborough Group Limited. He liaised with Kerry Group Limited, Marlborough Group Limited and, BMR, the provider of the workforce from Romania. In May, 2001, Marlborough Group Limited dismissed the worker informing him that he was no longer needed by Kerry Foods and that nothing else was available for him. The claimant believed that the Company could have offered him alternative work.
The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. His recommendation issued on the 27th September, 2001, as follows:-
“I am satisfied that the procedures employed in this dismissal failed the claimant dismally. I believe he was unfairly dismissed and I recommend that he be paid the sum of £1000.00 (€1269.74 Euro) in compensation.”
- The Worker appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 11th October, 2001, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 13th June, 2002, the earliest date available to both parties. The Company representative advised the Court by letter dated 28th May, 2002, of his intention not to attend the hearing.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The claimant believed that as the Company was a recruitment company it could have offered him alternative work.
2. The worker had previously been employed as an electrician. He had taken up the Managerial post as he believed that a career was available to him with the Company.
DECISION:
The Court has considered the position of the worker's arguments in this case. The Company was not represented. However a statement was received by the Court from the Receiver appointed to the Company. This statement indicated that any award that may be made by the Court in favour of the worker would rank as a preferential claim against the Company.
The Court is satisfied that the compensation awarded by the Rights Commissioner of €1,269.74 is a fair and just award in the circumstances of this case and therefore, the Court upholds the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
17th June, 2002______________________
CH/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Caroline Hayes, Court Secretary.