FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : KATARI LIMITED TRADING AS PHARMACY O' REILLY - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY BERNARD COFFEY) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Dismissal and other issues.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker started her employment in the Pharmacy on the 11th February, 2008. The Pharmacy had contacted her previous employer, Poundworld Northside, and received a reference on her behalf. The worker had been with Poundworld for two years and was a permanent employee. She was informed that for the first four weeks she would be employed for 30 hours and from the fifth week she would be full time at 40 hours per week. She worked 30 hours for the first three weeks but was told on the fourth week that she was only needed for 16 hours because of a pharmacy strike. The worker went to a Social Welfare Office where she was given "casual dockets" to fill in. When she enquired as to her hours for the fifth weeks she was told by the Pharmacy manager that there were no hours available and that she would be better off seeking alternative employment.
The worker referred her case to the Labour Court on the 2nd February, 2009, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 1st May, 2009. The Pharmacy did not attend the hearing or forward a written submission. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker left a permanent job on the understanding that she would be employed full time with the Pharmacy. In the event she only worked for a little over three weeks before she was made redundant.She also worked late for 12 out of 18 nights.
2. She had considerable trouble getting the casual dockets, which she needed to claim Social Welfare, filled in by the Pharmacy. She believes that part of the reason for her dismissal was when she asked to have the dockets signed.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes with regret that the employer declined to attend the hearing or to otherwise communicate with the Court in relation to the workers claim.
Having heard the uncontested submissions of the Claimant, the Court is satisfied that she was treated most unfairly by the employer in the manner in which her employment was terminated. It is clear that the employer knew that the Claimant had left her previous employment in response to the employers representation that she would be provided with permanent full-time employment. The Company failed to honour its commitment to the Claimant, in consequence of which she suffered significant ongoing loss and distress.
Having regard to all the circumstances of this case, the Court recommends that the Company pay the Claimant compensation in the amount of €1,500 in settlement of her claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
11th May, 2009.______________________
CON.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.