LCR22931

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00043880 (CA-00054241 -001)

BACKGROUND:

The worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 28 November 2023 in

accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

On 18 October 2023 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:-

“Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.

I find that the complaint is well founded, the worker was unfairly dismissed, and I now recommend that the employer pay compensation to the worker of €14,375.00."

A Labour Court hearing took place on 13 February 2024.

DECISION:

This is an appeal by a Worker of an Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation regarding a dispute with her former employer about the termination of her employment.

The Adjudication Officer found that the Worker was unfairly dismissed and recommended that her former employer pay her €14,375.00 in compensation.

The Worker appealed that Recommendation to this Court on the basis that the amount awarded was inadequate. While she accepted the Adjudication Officer’s general findings, she requested that the Court reassess the compensation awarded as it did not take account of the prolonged hardship or the significant and unforeseen developments that she has endured since her employment ended.

The Employer for its part accepted the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation and did not seek to overturn that decision.

The Worker’s employment was terminated by the Employer during her probationary period and this appeal comes before the Court as a trade dispute and not as a dispute regarding a potential breach of employment legislation.

The Court explained to the Worker that the Court’s role when investigating a complaint about a trade dispute is to hear the parties and set out its opinion on how the matter in dispute between the parties can be resolved.

The Court sought the views of the parties regarding how the dispute could best be resolved.

Notwithstanding her submission about the inadequacy of the compensation awarded at first instance, the Worker told the Court that the Employer made a mistake in terminating her employment and that it was unfair for her former Employer to say that she was dismissed for underperformance.

The Employer for its part submitted that it was satisfied that the substantive reason for terminating the Worker’s employment was valid, however, it acknowledged that there were shortcomings in the procedural process surrounding her dismissal. It said that those process defects had now been remedied.

The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions of both parties. The Court did not take account of any matters that post-dated the employment relationship in formulating this recommendation.

This Court takes a consistent view that workers should be treated fairly by employers before being dismissed from their employment.

Having regard to all if the circumstances of this case, the Court recommends that the Employer pay to the Worker the sum of €14,375, which is equivalent to three months’ pay, as compensation in full and final settlement of the matter in dispute.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Katie Connolly
DC	______________________
19 February 2024	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to David Campbell, Court Secretary.