FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MEDITERRANEAN FOOD & WINE COMPANY (REPRESENTED BY O'GRADYS, SOLICITORS) - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Compensation.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a worker who was employed by the Company in a part-time capacity from 29th October, 2002 to 26th November, 2002 and from 30th January, 2003 to 20th May 2003. The worker claimed that she was unfairly dismissed on the 20th May, 2003 and referred a complaint to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the 22nd July, 2004.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was dismissed on the 20th May, 2003 following a phone call from Management. She did not receive notice of dismissal. The worker does not accept that the issue of her dismissal was settled at the Rights Commissioner's hearing.
2. The worker did not attend the meeting in relation to the Till Receipts. She had never been present when the till had been cashed up and it was used by other employees when the worker left after completing her shift. The worker denies that she was in any way responsible for any irregularities in relation to the Till Receipts.
3. The worker was dismissed in an arbitrary and unfair manner and seeks appropriate compensation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The matter in dispute has already been settled following a Rights Commissioner's hearing. The settlement terms provided for full and final settlement of all claims against the Company.
2. Notwithstanding this, the Company contends that the worker left the employment in circumstances as follows:-
Management had become concerned over reconciliation of the Till Receipts. All staff were requested to attend a meeting on 16th May, 2003 to discuss the issue. The claimant was not willing to enter any discussions concerning Till Receipts and duly left the premises. Management had hoped that all matters could be amicably discussed and resolved.
3. Management found it very difficult to contact the claimant following her departure. The Company denies that she was dismissed. She left the employment of her own volition.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court first considered if this claim was compromised in the course of an earlier settlement reached during a Rights Commissioner's investigation under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. The wording recorded by the Rights Commissioner is capable of meaning that the amount paid was in consideration of the claimant undertaking not to make further claims arising from the termination of her employment. However the claimant is adamant that she never gave such an undertaking.
In the Court's view the parties appeared to be at cross purposes in whatever negotiations took place. In all the circumstances of the case the Court accepts, on balance, that the claimant did not intend to compromise a claim for redress arising from the manner of her dismissal. Accordingly, the Court cannot accept that the claimant is precluded from pursuing the present claim.
The Court has considered the submissions of the parties on the substantive issues in dispute. The Court is satisfied that the claimant was dismissed and that there was an element of unfairness in the manner of her dismissal. The Court recommends that the employer should offer and the claimant should accept an ex-gratia payment of €600 in settlement of her claim. This amount should be in addition to €280 paid following the hearing before the Rights Commissioner.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
6th August, 2004______________________
TOD/BRChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.