FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : RATOATH CHILDCARE CENTRE - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment at the Childcare Centre on the 17th of July, 2002, as a Childcare Assistant. She claims she was unfairly dismissed without notice on the 24th of February, 2003. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 23rd of June, 2003, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 30th of September, 2003, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
The Company did not make a submission to the Court and did not attend the hearing. The Company stated in a letter to the Court that it would not attend the hearing.
The Union agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker concerned was a dedicated and committed employee. When requested she often worked overtime at short notice.
2. Management gave no indication that it was dissatisfied with the work performance of the worker concerned.
3. The worker concerned was unfairly dismissed without notice. No reason was given for her dismissal.
RECOMMENDATION:
The employer did not attend the Court hearing but wrote to the Court indicating that they would not be attending as "we firmly believe we have no case to answer".
In the circumstances the Court did not have the benefit of a response from the employer to the written and oral submissions made by the claimant.
The claimant's case is that she was summarily dismissed when she returned from being out sick and having on that day arrived 45 minutes late. She claimed that there was no disciplinary action taken of any sort during her period of employment and that her immediate superior indicated prior to her dismissal that she was pleased with her work and that she had no complaints about her. She further stated that the dismissal had come as a complete surprise to her as there had been no criticism of her work. When she asked why she was being dismissed Management reportedly said that they did not have to give a reason.
The claimant stated that she had been out sick twice during her period of employment. On the particular week in question she had come back from sick leave at the request of the Management because of staff shortages but had then been sent home again by her immediate superior, in case she passed on her cold to the children.
The Court, based on the information before it finds it totally unacceptable that someone would be summarily dismissed, without an explanation, which she had sought, and without any previous indication or warnings from the employer of a performance deficit.
Based on the information before it, the Court finds the dismissal and the manner of the dismissal to be unfair and awards the claimant €15,000 in compensation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
21st October, 2003______________________
GB./MB.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.