FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : KARMARTON LIMITED TRADING AS ANCOVE ENTERPRISES (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Appeal of Recommendation of a Rights Commissioner r-087424-ir-09/TB
BACKGROUND:
2. The Worker was employed with the Company as a member of the tele-sales team from 18th December, 2008 until her dismissal/redundancy on 14th August, 2009. The Company suggests that the redundancy was solely due to the downturn in sales while the Union contends that it is linked to a complainant she had made regarding interpersonal issues which had arisen involving herself and a fellow-employee.
The issue involves a claim by a Worker. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 16th April 2010, the Rights Commissioner issued his Recommendation as follows:
"SIPTU link the complaint that the claimant made with her being made redundant. Having considered the submissions of the parties and the discussion at the hearing I cannot see that there is sufficient evidence to support that position. On that basis I am not recommending in favour of SIPTU."
On the 19th May, 2010 the Union appealed the Rights Commissioners 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 15th March, 2011.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Despite assurances given just weeks earlier about job security and the Company's financial stability the Worker was made redundant. This raises grave doubts about Management's motives which may have influenced their decision to seek a redundancy.
2.It is the Union's view that the Worker was treated unfairly both by terminating her employment and by failing to address the interpersonal issue about a colleague appropriately.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Claimant's position within the Company was made redundant due to a significant downturn in consumables business sales and she has not been replaced.
2. The Company asserts that the Rights Commissioner was correct in his findings and that there was no unfair dismissal and requests that the Recommendation is upheld.
DECISION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of both parties in this case.
The Court is satisfied that a genuine redundancy situation existed within the Company that would at some stage in late 2009 or early 2010 have resulted in a reduction of one employee in the telesales department. However, the Court is also satisfied that the timing of the redundancy in this case was, to some extent, influenced by the complaints that had been made in the course of her employment by the staff member concerned. Had no complaints been made it is probable that the Worker concerned would have remained in employment for some time longer than she did. There is even the possibility that the other Worker in the department would have opted for redundancy and the staff member concerned in this case might have remained an employee of the Company. This possibility is reinforced by the fact that the Company advertised and filled a vacancy in the telesales department when the sole remaining employee in the department decided to leave the Company in December 2009.
Accordingly, the Court takes the view that the Claimant had her employment prematurely terminated as a result of the complaints she made to management. In all the circumstances of this case the Court awards the worker concerned the sum of
€6,750.00 in full and final settlement of this dispute.
The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation is accordingly set aside.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
8th April, 2011______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.