FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : NEDAX FINANCIAL CONSULTING TEAM LIMITED - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed as a Tele Marketer with the Company. She claims that she commenced employment in June, 2008, although the Company maintains that it did not hire employees until 1st September, 2008. The worker claims that she was unfairly dismissed by the Company on two occasions, once in December, 2008, and again in April, 2009, as follows:
In December, 2008, the Company introduced a new policy regarding the payment of commission which resulted in a delay in employees being paid. The worker discussed the situation with a number of other employees on a Friday evening, all of whom were upset. On the following Monday she was called in to the office by her manager and told that she had been "bad-mouthing" the Company and would have to be let go. She was asked to sign an agreement which left the way open for her to rejoin the Company when the manager moved to another location, and the worker signed the document.
The worker rejoined the Company in January, 2009. She was having trouble with her wisdom teeth and on 1st April, 2009, she phoned her manager to see about getting a few hours off work to travel to Northern Ireland where it would be much cheaper to attend a dentist. The manager refused her the time off and, in the event, she was dismissed again.
The worker referred her case to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 5th February, 2010.The Company did not attend the hearing but supplied a written statement to the Court. It denies that the worker was unfairly dismissed. It claims that the worker had been given a number of warnings about her work and signed a statement to that effect. The worker was suspended on full pay after the incident in December, 2008, and was given a final written warning but was given €2,000 by the Company to see her over the Christmas period. She was brought back to work on a three-month trial. On the 1st April, 2009, the worker phoned her manager seeking the day off to contact dentist. When the manager refused the worker became aggressive and abusive. She had already been absent from work on a number of days with alleged problems with her teeth. The worker did not report for work. The Company tried on several occasions to contact her but this did not happen until 15th April, 2009. At a meeting on that date the worker admitted that she had not been dismissed but had resigned.
The following is the Court's recommendation:
RECOMMENDATION:
The employer did not attend the hearing although it did make a written submission setting out its version of the events material to the case.
Having considered the position of both parties the Court is satisfied that the Claimant's employment came to an end by dismissal following a disagreement concerning her request for time off to obtain dental treatment.
The Court is further satisfied that the manner in which the Claimant was treated by the employer fell far short of the normal standard of fairness which is to be expected from a reasonable employer.
In all the circumstances the dismissal was unfair. The Court recommends that the employer pay the Claimant compensation in the amount of €5,000 and that she be provided with a suitable reference.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
19th February, 2010.______________________
CON.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.