FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : CLG COMHAIRLE LAIGHEAN (LEINSTER COUNCIL OF THE GAA) (REPRESENTED BY ARTHUR COX SOLICITORS) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY ARTHUR MC LEAN SOLICITORS) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms O'Donnell |
1. Appeal of a Rights Commissioner's Recommendation r141641-IR-14
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue involves a claim by a worker that he was on a fixed-term contract that was terminated prior to its definitive cessation date. The matter was referred to an Adjudicator for investigation and decision. On the 21st January 2016, the Adjudicator issued his decision:-
"Accordingly it is my recommendation that the claimant be awarded an ex-gratia compensatory payment of €4,000 to be paid by the respondent together with a letter of comfort in which it is confirmed that there was nothing untoward in the claimants work and confirm that his good reputation remains unsullied."
On the 26th February, 2016 the worker appealed the Adjudicator's decision to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 19th April, 2016.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker says that the termination of his employment on the 27th November, 2013 prior to the termination of his Contract on 20th June, 2014 amounted to a disciplinary finding against him.
2. The worker was given no notice or warning of the termination of his contract. The worker claims that he suffered the loss of his good name and reputation.
3.The claimant was called to an a meeting under a disciplinary heading although he contends that there was a lack of procedure and he had no notification with regard to the alleged breach of discipline.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The employer emphatically denies that the ending of the claimant's contract was a disciplinary matter. It says that it was solely a restructuring matter.
2. The employer says that no question arises concerning the claimant's good name or reputation. The claimant went on to hold the role of Manager of the Wexford Intermediate hurling team.
3. The employer says that the claimant's contract of employment has expired in accordance with its terms and all monies due have been paid to him.
DECISION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions of both parties to this dispute. The Court notes that the Complainants main concern was that the manner in which his employment was terminated amounted to a criticism of his performance in the role. He was concerned that such a perception would gain credence and affect his personal and professional standing in the community.
The Respondent stated that the decision to terminate the Complainant’s employment was taken as a result of a province wide restructuring project that was taking place and was not the result of any criticism of or shortcoming on the part of the Complainant whom it acknowledged discharged his role with distinction.
In that context the Court finds that the Rights Commissioner’s recommendation is fair, reasonable and proportionate.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
19th May, 2016______________________
CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.