FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : PAINTRIDGE LTD T/A BOSTON BRAND BARS - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY IAN FITZHARRIS B.L. INSTRUCTED BY HENNESSY & PERROZZI SOLICITORS) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioners Recommendation No: r-121897-Ir-12/JT
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns an appeal by the worker of Rights Commissioners Recommendation No: r-122640-ir-12/SR. The issue concerns a claim by the worker that she was summarily dismissed without the opportunity to respond to issues that were raised by her employer. The issue was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. His Recommendation issued on the 21st November, 2012 and awarded the worker €20,000 on the basis that she had not been afforded the principles of natural justice and fair procedures.
On the 20th December, 2012 the worker appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 A Labour Court hearing took place on 7th March 2013.
The employer did not attend the hearing and was not represented.
WORKER'S ARGUMENT:
3 1 The worker was summarily dismissed by the employer without being given an opportunity to respond to the issues that were raised. On that basis the worker was not afforded natural justice or fair procedure which renders the dismissal unfair.
DECISION:
This matter came before the Court by way of an appeal by the worker against the recommendation of a Rights Commissioner in her claim under the Industrial Relations Act 1969 arising from her dismissal by her former employer Paintridge Limited t/a Boston Bars.
The Rights Commissioner recommended that the employer pay the Claimant compensation in the amount of €15,000. The employer was not represented at the hearing before the Rights Commissioner.
The employer was not represented at the hearing of the appeal. The Managing Director of the Company contacted the Court by e-mail seeking an adjournment of the appeal. He claimed that he had not received notice of the hearing. He was advised that he should appear before the Court if he wished to make such an application.
The Court is satisfied that the notice of the hearing was served on the Company at its registered address in good time. In these circumstances the Court proceeded to hear the appeal.
On the uncontested submissions placed before it the Court is fully satisfied that the Claimant was treated in a manner that fell far short off the standard of behaviour of a reasonable employer. In all the circumstances of the case the Court has come to the view that the compensatory award of €20,000 made by the Rights Commissioner is appropriate.
Accordingly the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is affirmed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
5th April 2013______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.