FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : LISA ROE (BENETTON) (REPRESENTED BY CATHERINE FEE & CO. SOLICITORS) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SEAN SHEEHAN) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker commenced employment in January, 2004, on a part-time basis (24 hours per week) having previously worked for the Company in 2002-2003. She claims that the owner of the shop was not present very often and that relations between herself and the assistant manager became strained, with the assistant manager consistently finding fault with her. In May, 2004, the worker went on 2 weeks' leave. During her holiday her employment was terminated without reason. The Company's case is that it had to let the worker go as she was not doing her job properly, either being absent from the shop or not working while she was there.
The worker referred her case to the Labour Court on the 15th of October, 2004, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 17th of November, 2005, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was constantly left on her own in the shop, sometimes having to work from 10.00 am to 6.00 p.m. and occasionally at week ends.
2. The worker felt that she was being bullied by the assistant manager and was consistently being criticised by her. She was given no reason for the dismissal and it came as a shock to her. She had difficulty obtaining another job due to the unfair dismissal.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. At first things went well but gradually complaints started to come in from staff and customers in regard to the worker. One problem was that she would go missing when left on her own in the shop, leaving it unattended.
2. The worker spoke badly of the assistant manager and complained about her to customers which made some of them uncomfortable. Other staff threatened to leave if the worker was not let go. The Company had no choice but to dismiss her.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is satisfied that the manner in which the claimant's employment was terminated fell well short of the objective standards of fairness which could be expected of a reasonable employer.
In the circumstances, the Court is fully satisfied that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. The Court is further satisfied that the claimant suffered significant financial loss in consequence of her dismissal.
The Court recommends that the employer pay the claimant compensation in the amount of €6,000 in settlement of her claim and that the claimant be furnished with a suitable reference.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
28th November, 2005______________________
CON/MB.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.