FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : HERBERT PARK HOTEL LIMITED - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY DENIS MCSWEENEY SOLICITORS) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Compensation.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed as restaurant supervisor in Brasserie na Mara in Dun Laoghaire and was promoted to Assistant Manager in May, 2004. As she wished to gain more experience in the hotel industry she applied for and was successful in obtaining the position of Conference and Banqueting Co-ordinator in the Herbert Park Hotel, although it meant she was paid less than her previous job. She commenced her new job on the 11th of April, 2005, and received two days basic training while on the job. The worker claims that in the first week she was approached about changing her appearance, e.g. wearing more make-up and high heels, and she complied with this request.
The worker maintains that apart from finding her line manager both difficult and unapproachable she had no problems with the job. On the 28th of April, 2005, she was asked to attend a meeting and was told that she was being dismissed with immediate effect. When she asked why, the reason given was cut-backs in the Hotel. She eventually received wages due to her and her P.45.
The worker referred her case to the Labour Court on the 9th of June, 2005, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Company did not attend the Labour Court hearing on the 15th of September, 2005. The worker agreed to be bound by the Labour Court's Recommendation.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.The worker had extensive experience working in the hotel industry, including time spent in America and Canada. She left a much better-paid job to gain more experience.
2. She received little training, certainly not the"comprehensive induction training programme"promised in the Induction booklet, but was expected to perform her job to a high standard after two days.
3. The worker was given no indication that she was to be dismissed. There had been no complaints regarding her work and when she asked for a reason was told that it was not performance related or personal.
4. Shortly after she was dismissed (because of cut-backs) the worker noticed a number of jobs being advertised in the Hotel through the internet and newspapers, including one in the Sales and Marketing Department where she worked.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court finds it regrettable that the employer declined to attend the hearing or otherwise address the worker's claim.
On the basis of the evidence before it, the Court is satisfied that by any reasonable standard the worker's treatment was grossly unfair. She left another employment by the offer of a job with her new employer, and was dismissed after two weeks without any adequate explanation of the reason for her dismissal. Her contract of employment provided for a six-month probation period and, in the Court's view, the claimant was entitled to expect that she would have had the benefit of that period to establish her suitability for continued employment.
In all the circumstances of the case, the Court recommends that the employer should pay the claimant compensation in the amount of €15, 000 in settlement of her claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
27th September, 2005______________________
CON/MB.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.