FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : SCOOSI RESTAURANT - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioners Recommendation.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company employed the worker as a chef in Scoosi Restaurant, Galway, on the 11th August, 2001. The worker alleges that she was unfairly dismissed on 10th October, 2001.
The worker referred the matter to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. The Rights Commissioner’s recommendation issued on 20th February, 2002, as follows:
“Based on the evidence available to me at the hearing I find that (the worker) was unfairly dismissed by the Scoosi restaurant and she is to receive €1900 compensation for her unfair dismissal. This amount takes into account the fact that (the worker) has not actively sought work since her dismissal as she is seeking to take up a different type of employment. But it also takes into account the delay of two months in issuing her with a P45 by the employer and the consequent delay in her being able to claim her social welfare benefits.”
- (The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner’s recommendation.)
On the 2nd April, 2002, the employer appealed the Rights Commissioners
recommendation to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place in Galway on the 16th October, 2002.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The worker was employed on a casual basis for shift work. She worked for the company for less than 13 weeks.
2. There is no hierarchical system in the kitchen. Each member of the kitchen staff work as part of a team. The worker failed to work as part of the team.
3. The employee was asked to stay back late at the end of one of her shifts as the restaurant was short staffed but she refused.
4. The worker’s P45 was prepared promptly and was left on the premises for collection. The employer did not have an address for the worker.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The worker was never told by the employers that they were not happy with her work.
2. The worker believed that she was employed as a Chef and should not have to do the duties of a Head Chef.
3. On the final day of her employment the worker was asked at a very late stage towards the end of her shift to stay on for a further few hours. The worker objected as she had a prior appointment. The employer informed the worker before she left that she was finished for good.
4. The employers did not leave the P45 out for collection on the day they said they would.
'
DECISION:
The Court concurs with the Rights Commissioner's decision in this case, that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. However, in arriving at the compensation figure of €1,900 the Rights Commissioner laid emphasis on the delay of two months in issuing her P45. It is the Court's view that the claimant made no effort to collect the P45 following her initial visit to the premises, a few days after her dismissal.
The Court having considered all aspects of this case upholds the Rights Commissioner's findings but amends her recommendation of compensation to €750.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
24th October, 2002______________________
CH/MB.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Caroline Hayes, Court Secretary.