FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : REAGECON DIAGNOSTICS LTD. - AND - A WORKER REPRESENTED BY MAIR�D CAREY B.L. (INSTRUCTED BY DAVID POWDERLY SOLICITORS) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Alleged Unfair Dismissal
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a complaint in relation to alleged unfair dismissal. The worker in question was employed by Reagecon Diagnostice Ltd, Shannon, Co Clare initially on a job placement and subsequently on a fixed term contract. The worker's wife also worked in the Company and was dismissed due to complaints being made against her.
The worker claims to have brought his wife home on the day she was dismissed as she was very upset. He claims he was given permission to do so by his supervisor on the day. It is further contended that when he returned to work, after three days of pre-arranged annual leave, he was dismissed. His position is that management informed him that he had effectively resigned when he left the premises with his wife on the day of her dismissal.
On 10th January, 2008 the worker referred the issue to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.The Company declined an invitation to attend the Labour Court investigation into the dispute on the basis that there was no dispute and it would not take part in or be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
A Labour Court hearing took place on 8th April, 2008.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The worker received permission from his supervisor to take his wife home on the day of her dismissal. The worker was subsequently absent on pre-arranged annual leave and was summarily dismissed on his return to work.
2 Management claimed at the time that the worker had resigned his position on the same day his wife was dismissed. This is not the case.
3 The worker attempted to explain the situation to management on his return to work but was given twenty minutes to leave the Company's premises.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court finds it regrettable that the employer failed to attend the hearing to investigate the worker’s claim; neither did it furnish a written statement setting out its position.
On the basis of the oral and written submission made by Ms. Mair�ad Carey B.L. on behalf of the worker, the Court is satisfied that his employment was terminated in an unfair and inappropriate manner.
In the circumstances the Court recommends that the Employer pay the Claimant compensation in the amount of €5000 in full and final settlement of his claim.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
28th April 2008______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.