FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : HILLS OF BRAY REPRESENTED BY THE SOCIETY OF THE IRISH MOTOR INDUSTRY - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed by the Company as a console operator/cashier from 8th April 2001 until 30th November 2001.The worker had been employed by the Company previously for a period of one year and left to take up a position elsewhere. The worker alleges that she was unfairly dismissed on the 30th November 2001 and she referred her case a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. The Employer objected to a Rights Commissioners investigation and refused to attend the hearing.
The worker referred her case to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 29th August 2002 in Wicklow. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker never had any problems with the employer.
2. The worker was not given a contract of employment and was not given a verbal warning she was not aware that her job was in jeopardy.
3. The worker was a good time keeper and had a good working relationship with her colleagues.
4. The worker was given an increase in her wages weeks before she was dismissed.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was not suited to the position of console operator.
2. The Company had a number of issues regarding the worker leaving the site during her shift.
3. The decision to terminate the worker's employment was slightly outside the Company's normal six months probationary period - this was due to an oversight.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Employer stated that he dismissed the claimant for bad behaviour in leaving the site during shifts and taking frequent smoking and mobile phone breaks. He also claimed she did not fit in with the other team members.
The claimant's case was that she did a good job and had been sacked without reasonable cause. She claimed she had been told the reason for her dismissal had been for bad timekeeping, a charge she disputed. While she accepted that the Employer had spoken to her about breaks, she was never made aware that it was a serious issue.
The Employer's explanations to the Court of the dismissal were unconvincing, particularly in light of the timing of the implementation of his decision to dismiss her - on her day off. In addition she was given a pay rise just a month before her dismissal.
The Employee was not supplied with a Contract of Employment and there is no evidence to contradict her claim that she was not told she was on probation.
The Court is satisfied that her dismissal was unfair and recommends that the Employer pay her €3,000 in compensation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
3rd September, 2002______________________
HMCD/MB.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Helena McDermott, Court Secretary.