FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : KEARNEY PLACEMENT CONSULTANTS LTD TRADING AS GKR SEARCH AND SELECTION - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY DAMIEN HUNTER) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the worker's claim of unfair treatment. The Worker referred this case to the Labour Court on 14 June 2018 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 18 July 2018. The Employer did not attend the hearing.
WORKER’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Worker made contact with her employer by phone and by e-mail on the first day of her absence from work on a plea of illness.
2. She remained in contact from Monday through to Thursday at which time her employer indicated that there was "no problem at all, hope you feel better and see you on Monday".
3. Seven days later, without any prior discussion, she was dismissed due to lack of contact during her absence from work due to illness. The Worker adhered fully to her terms of employment and processes. Her Employer failed to adhere to their own policies thereby depriving the Worker of her employment rights.
RECOMMENDATION:
This matter comes before the Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Respondent did not attend the hearing of the Court or make any submission in relation to the matters before the Court. The Court is satisfied that the Respondent was properly notified of the date and time of the hearing of the Court.
The Claimant was dismissed by the Respondent on 16thNovember 2017.
The Court accepts the uncontested submission of the Claimant. She submitted that:
•She left full time employment which was effectively permanent in order to take up employment with the Respondent.
•She was not subject to a period of probation following recruitment by the Respondent.
•No performance related or other issues were raised by the Respondent during her period of employment.
•No process was employed by the Respondent to fairly arrive at a conclusion to dismiss her.
•The contention that she did not contact the Respondent while absent during a brief illness was false.
•Her dismissal by the Respondent caused her severe trauma.
The Court notes that the Claimant’s salary at the date of her dismissal was €30,000 per annum plus commission.
In all of the circumstances of the case as outlined by the Claimant the Court finds that the Claimant was unfairly dismissed. The Court recommends that the Respondent pay the Claimant the sum of €10,000 in compensation for the effects of her unfair dismissal.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
19 July 2018______________________
MNChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Neville, Court Secretary.