This website contains decisions and determinations of both the Labour Court and the WRC. It also contains decisions and recommendations of the Equality Tribunal since 1996 and post 2007 determinations of the Employment Appeals Tribunal. For more information click here

LCR22587

FULL RECOMMENDATION

CD/22/30
RECOMMENDATION  NO.  LCR22587

SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969


PARTIES :
APPLUS INSPECTION SERVICES IRELAND LIMITED

- AND -

A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY MS KARAN O'LOUGHLIN)


DIVISION :

Chairman: Mr Geraghty
Employer Member: Mr O'Brien
Worker Member: Ms Treacy

SUBJECT:

1. Unfair Dismissal.

BACKGROUND:

2. This dispute concerns due process and compensation. The Worker referred this case to the Labour Court on 03 February 2022 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 12 May 2022.


WORKER’S/UNION’S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. The Worker was dismissed despite there being no evidence or history of underperformance and despite the Worker following all absence procedures

2. The Employer did not engage at the local level on this issue and did not follow their own procedures during the dismissal process. 


EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:

4. The Employer did not attend the hearing.


RECOMMENDATION :

This matter was referred to the Court under s.20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. The Employer did not attend the hearing, so the Court accepts the undisputed facts as presented on behalf of the Complainant.

The Court received a note from the Employer citing some case law, which the Employer interpreted to mean that an employer can terminate employment for any reason, or no reason, provided adequate notice is given. The Court noted this view but the Employer’s non attendance meant that the Court did not get the opportunity to engage with this interpretation of the law.

It is clear to the Court that the Worker was dismissed from his employment without being afforded any process that would have allowed him to make a case for retention. Notwithstanding that the Worker did not have the requisite service to be covered by the Unfair Dismissals Act, the Court takes a consistent view that employees are entitled to fair procedures before being dismissed. Accordingly, the absence of any procedures leads the Court to conclude that the Worker in this case was dismissed unfairly.

The Worker asked the Court to recommend re-instatement. The Court does not believe that it would be in the interests of either party to make such a recommendation as the relationship has broken down.

The Court established the losses experienced by the Complainant as a result of his dismissal and the steps taken by him to mitigate these losses.

Taking all factors into account, the Court recommends that the Employer pay compensation of €5,000 to the Worker in respect of his unfair dismissal.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom Geraghty
CN ______________________
19 May 2022 Deputy Chairman


NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Cathal Nurney, Court Secretary.