FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : FEELYSTONE LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioners Recommendation IR9484/02/GF.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the design, manufacture and supply of architectural and monumental stone. It employs approximately 60 people. The worker was employed on the 30th of January, 2001, and was dismissed on the 16th of January, 2002, with one week's notice. The Union believed that the dismissal was unfair and referred the case to the Rights Commissioner whose recommendation issued on the 20th of January, 2003, as follows:
"On the basis of the evidence at the hearing I must conclude the dismissal was genuinely due to re-organisation/redundancy and it was not unfair. Therefore, I find in the employer's favour."
The Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 28th of February, 2003, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 13th of May, 2003, in Athlone.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company has admitted that it did not follow proper procedures in dismissing the worker. He was the only one of 60 employees to be dismissed.
2. There was no discussion with the Union regarding redundancy, short-time work or lay offs that took place at the time.
3. Whilst the equipment (saw) that the worker used was being phased out, he could have been re-deployed as he had skills in other areas. People with less service were retained.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was dismissed because of a reduction in the number of staff required when the Company's new factory was "up and running" in February/March, 2002.
2. The Company suffered a downturn in business at the time that the worker was dismissed. The saw he used has rarely been used since the dismissal.
3. Two other workers left the Company at the same time as the worker concerned.
DECISION:
A number of reasons were given by the employer for the dismissal of the claimant, including a downturn in business.
The Court notes that the Company accepts that it did not follow procedures when giving the claimant notice of his dismissal and that it did not pay him 4 weeks' notice as per his contract.
The Court finds it difficult to understand why the claimant was the only employee in the Company to be made redundant given that this followed a negative review of the business requirements for the future.
The Court finds the dismissal and the manner of dismissal fell well below normal standards in such situations and to be unfair.
The Court awards the claimant €3,000 in compensation (to include any outstanding monies due).
The Court, therefore, sets aside the Rights Commissioner's recommendation and upholds the appeal.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
26th May 2003______________________
CON/MB.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.