LCR22391

1. Claim that the worker was unfairly dismissed.

BACKGROUND:

2. This dispute concerns dismissal without notice. The Worker referred the case to the Labour Court on 28 December 2020 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 6 April 2021 in a virtual Court room. The Employer did not attend the Hearing.

WORKER’S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. The Worker stated that the Employer dismissed her without notice on 27 March 2020.
2. In November 2019, the Worker underwent a performance appraisal and was awarded an increase in salary of €10,000.
3. On 19 March 2020, the Worker received a signed letter from her line Manager, stating her job was secure for the foreseeable future.


RECOMMENDATION :

This matter comes before the Court as a referral of a Trade Dispute under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. Under that Act the Court is required to afford the parties to the dispute an opportunity to be heard and to issue a Recommendation setting forth its opinion on the merits of the dispute and how it should be resolved.

In this case the employer has chosen not to attend the hearing of the Court and consequently has not been heard. A firm of solicitors did write to the Court advising that the employer did not intend to attend the hearing of the Court and in that letter went on to set out a range of assertions which purported to contradict much of the worker’s account of the facts of this dispute. In that letter the Court notes that no suggestion of any disciplinary element to the dismissal of the worker was made.

The Court was unable to engage with the employer in the course of hearing this dispute and consequently must rely on the extensive written and oral submissions of the worker who did attend the hearing of the Court.

The Court has noted carefully the worker’s account of her employment in the employer company and has noted in particular that on 19^th March 2020 an Associate Director of the employer gave the worker a letter which asserted that her job was “secure for the foreseeable future as she was just handed a new project yesterday to lead”.

The Court has further noted that on 27^th March 2020 she was asked, on the day, to attend an unscheduled meeting wherein the employer advised her that her employment was to be terminated on that day. She was told by the employer that the reason for her termination was her performance as an architect notwithstanding that she had received a pay increase of €10,000 no more than four months previously.

The employer’s solicitor has, in the letter to the Court referred to above, advised that the termination of the employment was overwhelmingly related to the effects of the Covid 19 Pandemic. The worker submitted to the Court that this was not put to her at the unscheduled termination meeting of 27^th March 2020 as the basis for her immediate dismissal.

The worker has submitted, and the Court accepts, that no procedure was conducted wherein the worker was afforded the opportunity to address any allegation against her which might lead to her dismissal or to respond to any case made against her. The decision to dismiss the worker was taken unilaterally by the employer and no avenue of appeal was afforded the worker.

The Court takes into account the provisions of S.I. No. 146/2000 - Industrial Relations Act, 1990 (Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures) which emphasises the importance of ensuring that an employee is aware of any disciplinary procedure which is initiated in respect of her and to know any case being made against her and to have a fair opportunity to respond to any such case. The Code also emphasises the importance of the availability of an internal mechanism wherein a sanction which has been imposed can be appealed.

The clear view of the Court is that an employer contemplating the dismissal of an employee for any reason is obliged to ensure the observance of fair procedure and natural justice before making a decision in relation to the matter and to provide the worker with an avenue of appeal of any decision to dismiss. In the course of the events giving rise to this trade dispute, no procedure at all was followed and the decision to dismiss was taken without engagement with the employee. In addition, the worker was deprived of any opportunity to appeal her dismissal.

This matter has not come before the Court as a complaint of unfair dismissal under the provisions of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 and the Court cannot purport to exercise a jurisdiction under that Act in relation to the within matter. Rather the Court is obliged to set out the terms on which, in its opinion, the trade dispute should be resolved.

The Court believes that the absence of any procedural fairness or natural justice in the conduct of the dismissal has caused much distress to the worker. For that reason, the Court believes the employer should make a payment to the worker as compensation for the distress she has suffered and in an effort to bring full and final settlement to the matters in dispute. The Court believes that the amount of compensation which is fair and reasonable having regard to the circumstances is €15,000.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Kevin Foley
CO'R	______________________
08/04/2021	Chairman