FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : PERY SQUARE STAFF AGENCY LTD - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Reinstatement
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker registered with the Agency in June 2004 and was recruited by the Agency to work for a Company as a temporary Legal Secretary to fill in for a permanent secretary who was on maternity leave, for a period of approximately two months, on a week-to-week basis. On the 2nd September, 2004, the worker was approached, in her workplace, by two members of the Agency who informed her that a complaint had been made by a client of the Company and that the Agency were instructed by the Company to terminate her employment within the Company with immediate effect.
- On the 23rd December, 2004, the workerreferred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 30th March,2005.
The worker agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers employment was terminated without affording her a constitutional right to be heard.
2. The worker was not given the opportunity to answer the complaint or explain her actions to her employer.
3. The worker contends that she was escorted off the premises and asked to hand over the keys. She felt like a criminal. The Agency has not found work for her since.
AGENCY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. On the 2nd September the Company informed the Agency that a complaint had been made and the client was taking their business elsewhere due to the workers interference in their personal business, which was not part of the service offered or requested by the Company.
2. The Company informed the Agency that they could not have the worker working for them any longer. It is at the Agency's client's discretion if they no longer require their services.
3 It was more professional and personal to inform the worker of the circumstances in person, rather than to be told over the phone. As there was nobody else working in the office, the Agency waited to lock up and bring the keys back with them.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that the Agency accepts that it is the employer in this case.
On the facts agreed between the parties it is clear that the claimant was dismissed without being given a full opportunity to address the complaint against her. On this basis the Court must hold that the dismissal was procedurally unfair. Having reached that conclusion the Court is of the view that the claimant contributed significantly to the events leading to her dismissal by acting inappropriately in respect of the matter complained of by the Agency's client.
Having regard to all circumstances of the case the Court recommends that the dispute be disposed of by the employer offering and the claimant accepting an ex-gratia payment of €350 in full and final settlement of her claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
6th April 2005______________________
JO'CChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Joanne O'Connor, Court Secretary.