FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : SUPERMACS IRELAND LTD - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY CUNNINGHAM GILBOURNE SOLICITORS) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Unfair Dismissal
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the Company and the worker in relation to Unfair Dismissal. The worker contends that he was summarily dismissed having made a complaint of bullying and harassment which was investigated but not upheld by management. On the 27th May 2014 the worker referred the matter to the Labour Court 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 the 18th September 2014. The employer was notified of the time and date of the hearing but did not attend and was not represented.
WORKER'S ARGUMENT:
3 1 The worker was dismissed without being afforded the principle of fair procedures or natural justice. He made a complaint to management in relation to alleged bullying and harassment which was not upheld. After a subsequent period of sick leave he was then summarily dismissed without reason. In the circumstances the worker is seeking that he be compensated for the way in which he was treated by his former employer.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court was brought under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 and concerns a claim of unfair dismissal.
The Employer did not attend the hearing.
The Claimant stated that his employment was terminated on 21stMarch 2014, following a complaint of bullying and harassment he made on 10thFebruary 2014. The Employer conducted an investigation into the allegations which did not uphold the Claimant’s complaint. The Claimant was out sick for two weeks at the beginning of March 2014 and at the end of this shift on 21stMarch 2014 his was informed that his employment was terminated without any reasons being given for his dismissal.
Having heard the uncontested evidence of the Claimant the Court is satisfied that the manner of his dismissal did not meet the standards of natural justice. The Court is of the view that the termination of the Claimant’s employment in the circumstances described is contrary to the basic requirements of procedural fairness and good practice. It is also contrary to the provisions of the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedure (S.I. No. 146 of 2000). That Code of Practice is made pursuant to s. 42 of the Industrial Relations Act 1990 and the Court is required by s. 42(4) of that Act to have regard to its provisions in deciding on any case to which it relates. For all of these reasons the Court finds that the dismissal of the Claimant was unfair on procedural grounds.
Consequently, the Court is of the view that the summary dismissal of the Claimant was unacceptable and recommends that he should be compensated by the payment of €5,000 in full and final settlement of the claim before the Court.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
10th October 2014______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.