FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : OSTO LTD (REPRESENTED BY J P FITZPATRICK & CO) - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-033605-Ir-05/JH.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company on the 14th March 2005 as a Safety Trainer. He was employed for just over two weeks. Conditions of employment were agreed verbally at interview and subsequently agreed by the worker by telephone. The worker submitted an expenses application at the end of his first weeks work which was rejected by the employer. The Company claims that the worker left of his own volition and resigned .The worker states that he was handed a letter of notice, given his P45 and told to leave the premises.
The issue was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. Her recommendation issued on the 10th October, 2005, as follows:-
...I recommend that OSTO Ltd pay the worker the sum of €2,000 as a termination payment in full and final settlement of any claim by him against his former employer arising from his employment or non employment how so ever arising.
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation).
The Company appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 17th November 2005, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 11th May 2006.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.The worker was ready willing and able to continue employment. He did not choose to leave.
2. The Employer had every opportunity to pay the submitted expenses application.
3. The suggested figure of €2,000 as a full and final settlement is well short of the actual losses suffered.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The Company states that on the 29th March 2005 the worker did not attend for work and notified the Employer that it was his intention to work for himself.
2. The worker had other avenues open to him to address his alleged difficulties with the Employer and could have spoken to the Employer directlybefore leaving the employment.
3. The Employer was prepared to pay the worker reasonable expenses incurred in the course of his employment. The worker was however claiming expenses for travelling to and from work.
DECISION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of the parties to this dispute. Having done so the Court is satisfied that the conclusions and recommendation of the Rights Commissioner are reasonable in the circumstances of this case.
Accordingly, the Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is affirmed and the appeal is disallowed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
22nd May, 2006______________________
MG.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.