FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : CASSIDY'S HOTEL - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal of a Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-056957-ir-07/POB.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Worker concerned was employed as a Night Porter at the Hotel from 30th January 2007 to 11th February 2007. He was let go when the worker he was to replace decided to stay. The Hotel had no further work for him.
The Worker submitted a claim to a Rights Commissioner under the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969-1990, for investigation and recommendation. His Recommendation issued on the 5th June 2008 as follows:-
"I believe the respondent had no alternative but to dismiss the claimant when it found it had no position for him but the manner in which they implemented this, and the fact that they did not have an agreed contract with a probationary period built into it, leaves the respondent with some liability in this case. In determining any recommendation for settlement, the claimant's loss of earnings and short service have to be taken into account. Also he did not appear to have left alternative employment for this position, but this was not addressed by the claimant at the hearing. I recommend that the respondent pay the claimant €2,500 within 30 days of this recommendation."
The Worker appealed the Recommendation to the Labour Court on the 8th July, 2008, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 29th August 2008.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Worker contends that the quantum of compensation awarded was not adequate for the stress, loss of earnings and inconvenience he suffered.
2. The Worker maintains that he was unfairly dismissed without notice when another employee changed his mind about leaving his employment. There was no other position for the Worker.
3. The Worker believed that he was in a permanent position of employment and maintains that he was not made aware that he was on probation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company would argue that the Worker has waived his right to appeal by requesting and accepting payment of €2,500 as awarded by the Rights Commissioner.
2. The Worker was hired on the basis that the existing Night Porter was leaving and there was a vacancy. When the existing Night Porter decided to remain the Company no longer had a position for the Worker.
3. The Company maintains that the Worker was clearly aware that he was made redundant and not unfairly dismissed.
DECISION:
The Court, having carefully considered the submissions made to it by the parties, is of the view that the Recommendtion of the Rights Commissioner was appropriate in all the circumstances and accordingly decides to uphold it and dismiss the appeal.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
8th September, 2008______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.