FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ELECTRACTION LIMITED - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal of a Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-079569-Ir-09/Km
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue before the Court concerns a claim by the worker that he was unfairly dismissed, did not receive any payment in lieu of notice and that he is owed holiday pay. The worker was employed with the Company from January 2008 until December, 2008. It is the worker's claim that during his employment he raised a number of issues with his employer. These included health and safety issues, payslips and his terms of employment. The Company refutes the worker's claims and its position is that the worker was made redundant due to the downturn in business. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 18th December, 2009 the Rights Commissioner issued his Recommendation as follows:
" There is a significant conflict of evidence with regard to the claimant's complaint and the respondent's position. On the balance of probability I prefer the evidence presented by the respondent. With regard to the claimants complaint of not receiving proper holidays under the relevant act holidays commence from April to April basis given the claimant's holidays that he has recieved and the overpayment, he has received the appropriate amount of annual leave that he was entitled to. I also note the respondent accepts the claimant did not receive written terms of employment within the required period of section 3 of the Act. Considering the claimants presentations of his evidence for the hearing I do not accept the respondent intentionally avoided responsibility of section 3 of the Act. However it was a breach of the Act therefore I award the claimant €50 based on this breach with regard to all other matters I do not find the claimants case to be well founded and therefore falls."
On the 25th January, 2010 the worker appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 1st July, 2010.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The worker did not receive four weeks holiday pay owed to him.
2 The worker never received a statement of terms of employment or of health and safety policy.
3 The worker did not receive any notice on the termination of his employment
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The worker's employment was terminated due to a reduction in business.
2 The worker received all holiday pay he was entitled to. Wage slips were issued every week to the worker.
3 The worker was supplied with a health and safety statement and recieved one weeks notice when his employment was terminated.
DECISION:
Having considered all aspects of the worker 's appeal of the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation, the Court finds that the employer failed to pay one week’s pay in lieu of notice on the termination of his employment, failed to grant him 7 days’ paid annual leave and failed to provide him with written terms of his employment.
The Court finds that the termination of his employment arose due to a genuine redundancy situation and accordingly does not find that he was unfairly dismissed.
In all the circumstances the Court decides that he should be paid the sum of €1,500.00 in full and final settlement of his claim against the employer. This sum should be paid within four weeks of this Decision.
Accordingly, the Court upholds the worker’s appeal and overturns the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
22nd July,2010______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.