FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : CELESTINE CAFE BAR T/A HICKEY FINNS PUB (REPRESENTED BY DAS GROUP) - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Unfair Dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case concerns an allegation of Unfair Dismissal.
On the 15th July 2015, the Worker referred the dispute 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 29th September, 2015. The Employer did not attend the hearing but did outline the reason for its non attendance to the Court in correspondence dated 10th August, 2015.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Worker strongly denies the allegations made by his employer which resulted in his employment being terminated.
2. No notice was given to the Worker stating that his probation was being extended.
3..No warning was given to the Worker prior to his dismissal.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Claimant was employed by the Employer as Head Chef on a fixed term contract to run from 6thOctober 2014 until 6thOctober 2015. His employment was terminated on 31stMarch 2015. The Claimant told the Court that when he was on sick leave from 23rdMarch 2015 until 1stApril 2015, he received notification by email dated 31stMarch 2015 that his employment was terminated, due to allegations made by his employer which he strenuously denied. In these circumstances he claimed that his dismissal was unfair.
The Employer did not attend the hearing for reasons that were given in correspondence to the Court.
Based on the uncontested evidence of the Claimant the Court must find that the dismissal in this case was unfair, as he was not afforded any opportunity to present a defence before a decision to dismiss him was taken. In these circumstances 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. This is contrary to 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 section 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. The failure of the Company in that regard rendered the dismissal procedurally unfair.
In the circumstances the Court recommends that the Employer should pay the Claimant compensation in the amount of €20,000 in full and final settlement of his claim before the Court, within a period of six weeks from the date of this Recommendation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
CO'R______________________
14th October, 2015Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Clodagh O'Reilly, Court Secretary.