FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : PISCES FERMOY LTD (REPRESENTED BY JAMES W WALSH SOLICITORS) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY MANDATE) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR10356/02/MR
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker had been employed by the Company from December 2001 to May 2002. The Union claims that the worker was dismissed from her employment without due cause or notice. Also, the employer failed in his duty to give the worker a contract of employment and a statement of her terms and conditions. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 13th May, 2003, the Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation as follows:
“Accordingly, I recommend that Pisces Fermoy Ltd should agree to pay the worker an ex gratia lump sum of €1,000 and that the worker and MANDATE should accept this payment in full and final settlement of all matters in dispute between the parties ".
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation)
On the 17th June, 2003 the Union appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 on the grounds that the amount of compensation awarded was inadequate. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 10th September, 2003, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 The worker was dismissed from her employment without due cause or notice. She was not aware of any probationary periods. She was never informed of any procedures that may lead to disciplinary action or to her dismissal.
2. The employer failed to give the worker a contract of employment and a statement of her terms and condition.
3. The worker did not contribute to her dismissal and as such her compensation should be increased.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 The worker performed her duties not only grudgingly but to an inadequate standard. This led Management to consider her work unsatisfactory. She was repeatedly corrected during her first few months, but she was also encouraged to improve.
2. After an incident on the 25th April 2002, the Manager formally warned the worker verbally, that if her conduct and performance did not improve her employment would be terminated.
3. After another incident on the 16th May, 2002 the Manager felt he had no choice but to terminate the worker's employment with immediate effect.
DECISION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court is satisfied that the conclusions and recommendation of the Rights Commissioner are reasonable.
Accordingly, the recommendation is affirmed and the appeal is disallowed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
15th September, 2003______________________
JB/BGDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.