FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : XCEL XECUTIVE CLEANERS (REPRESENTED BY PENINSULA BUSINESS SERVICES IRELAND LTD) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY THE LIMERICK RESOURCE CENTRE FOR THE UNEMPLOYED) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Unfair Dismissal
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the Company and the worker in relation to alleged unfair dismissal. The issue concerns a worker who claims to have been unfairly dismissed after making a complaint to the client of her employer while at work. The employer's position is that the worker was moved from one location to the other but refused to take up its offer of work at the new location. The worker does not accept that she was offered the number of hours that management claimed to have offered her. The worker referred the case to the Labour Court on 26th July 2012 in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on 21st February, 2013.
WORKER'S ARGUMENT:
3 1 It is the worker's clear contention that she was dismissed for making a complaint to the client of her employer and for no other reason. The alternative hours that management claimed to have offered were significantly less than the contractual number of hours (17 hours per week) and were totally unsuitable.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENT:
4 1 The worker was repeatedly offered alternative work but did not accept the new hours at the new locations. The employer also expected that more hours would shortly become available to her. She did not accept the additional hours and therefore terminated her own employment.
RECOMMENDATION:
- The matter before the Court concerns the worker’s claim of unfair dismissal. The Claimant contended that she was dismissed on foot of a complaint she made to the Employer’s client where her work was based.
The Employer stated to the Court that the Claimant’s employment was terminated following her refusal of offers of alternative employment when it needed to remove her from the client’s location.
The Court notes that the nature of the Employer’s business can necessitate relocation of employees from one client to another, as reflected in the Claimant’s contract of employment.
Having considered the oral and written submissions of both parties the Court is of the view that the Claimant’s dismissal was procedurally unfair. In all the circumstances of this case, the Court is of the view that in the absence of reasonable alternative employment being immediately available, the Employer rather than bringing the employment to an end with undue haste, could have placed the Claimant on lay off pending alternative employment becoming available. In such circumstances, the Court finds that the dismissal was unfair and awards the Claimant the sum of €2,500 compensation in full and final settlement of the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
19th March 2013______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.