FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : PAT THE BAKER - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Dismissal
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the Worker's claim that he was unfairly dismissed. The Worker referred this case to the Labour Court on 8th October, 2014, 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 12th December, 2014. The Employer declined to attend the hearing.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Worker accepts that he made a minor administrative error.
2. The Worker was then informed by phone that he was dismissed.
3.The Employer's action was unreasonable and disproportionate.
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.
Having heard the uncontested evidence of the Claimant the Court is satisfied that the manner of his dismissal fell far short of the standard of fairness that could be expected from a reasonable employer. The Employer informed the Claimant by telephone that he was dismissed. This dismissal occurred due to a minor administrative error with one delivery of bread. The Court is of the view that had the Employer acted in a fair and reasonable manner this issue could have been resolved without the necessity for disciplinary action.
The Court notes that the Claimant had completed his probationary period, he had been promised a permanent contract, which never materialised and two months after his dismissal, inexplicitly and clearly by mistake he received a letter from the Employer extending his employment.
Furthermore the Court notes that on the termination of his employment the Claimant had difficulty in securing monies owed to him and to this day he is still owed the sum of €200.00 in respect of subsistence allowance and commission payments.
In all the circumstances of this case, the Court finds that the termination of the Claimant’s employment in the manner in which it occurred is contrary to the most 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 Section 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 and awards him the sum of €12,000 compensation for the manner of his dismissal, plus €200.00 in respect of monies owed to him.
Therefore, the Court recommends that the Claimant should be paid the sum of €12,200 within six weeks of this Recommendation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
6th January, 2015______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.