FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : BODY CONNECTION DAY SPA - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a worker who claims to have been unfairly dismissed by her employer.
The worker was employed as a Beauty Therapist in a Beauty Salon which had recently been reopened as a Day Spa. The worker in question entered a "dummy" appointment in the appointment book at the end of a day to allow time to clean up the premises.
The employer dismissed the worker on the basis all workers had been informed that this practice was unacceptable.
On the 24th January, 2005, the Worker referred 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 28th April, 2005.
The Worker agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The practice of writing "dummy" appointments into the book was standard procedure within the salon. If it had been known that the placing of these appointments into the book was grounds for instant dismissal, it would not have been done.
2. There were no formal warnings given, nor was there any opportunity given to explain the workers position on the matter.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. All employees had been informed that the practice of placing "dummy" appointments in the book was unnaceptable and grounds for instant dismissal.
2. As the worker did not deny making the entry, the decision was taken to dismiss.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is clear to the Court that the decision to dismiss the claimant was taken before she was afforded any opportunity to respond to the allegations against her or to explain the circumstances in which the entry in question came to be entered in the appointments book. This constituted an infringement of fair procedures and was contrary to the provisions of the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures (SI 146 of 2000). Whilst the Court accepts that the claimant should not have made the entry, it is clear that she did not gain in any way from so doing and a warning or a lesser sanction than dismissal could have dealt with the matter.
In the circumstances the Court is satisfied that the claimant was unfairly dismissed.
The Court recommends that the claimant be paid compensation in the amount of €3,000 in full and final settlement of her claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
10th May, 2005______________________
AH/MB.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.