LCR15633

FULL RECOMMENDATION CD/97/104 RECOMMENDATIONNO.LCR15633 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DUNNES STORES - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill

SUBJECT:
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.


BACKGROUND:

2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company on the 9th December, 1996 at its outlet in Blanchardstown Shopping Centre. The worker's daughter was also employed in the same store. The worker was let go on the 13th December, 1996 and claims that she was unfairly dismissed.

The worker referred the dispute to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on the 3rd September, 1997. The Company declined an invitation to attend the hearing.


WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. The worker was unaware of the Company's rule that they did not employ two people from the same family. This should have been mentioned at the interview.

2. As far as the worker is concerned the Company was aware that her daughter also worked in the store.

3. Management promised to transfer the worker to another branch of the Company but this has not happened.

4. Local management were also unaware of the Company's rule concerning the employment of two members from the same family.








RECOMMENDATION:

The Company wrote to the Court stating only that it would not be represented at the hearing. Consequently the only information before the Court was that supplied by the claimant.

Based on the evidence presented it would appear that the only reason the claimant's employment was discontinued was because her daughter was employed in the same store.

The Court finds it extraordinary that this warranted dismissal, particularly as it was not raised at interview, although both members of the family applied together and had the same address and first names. The Court was told that there was no mention of this rule in the Employee handbook supplied.

The Court was also surprised that the commitment to place the claimant in another store was not honoured by the Company. Taking into account all aspects of this case the Court is satisfied that the claimant was treated unfairly.

The Court recommends that the Company pay the Employee a lump sum of £750 in compensation.





Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Finbarr Flood
9th September, 1997______________________
L.W./S.G.Deputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.