Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94672 Case Number: LCR14666 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: EASON AND SON LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
The Court is satisfied that the claimant carried out her duties
competently and that the management had no reason to find fault
with her work. Indeed this was acknowledged by the Company at the
Court hearing and in the reference supplied.
Having considered the written and oral submissions of both sides
the Court finds that the cessation of the claimants employment was
not unreasonable given the temporary nature of her contract.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94672 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14666
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
EASON AND SON LIMITED
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed by the Company as a temporary sales
assistant. She was employed on 20th March, 1991 and
allegedly dismissed on 15th February, 1992 (11 months).
The worker claims that the termination of her employment was
unfair.
The Union made representations at local level to have the
worker retained in her employment. These efforts were
unsuccessful. The Union then sought the services of a Rights
Commissioner to resolve the matter but the Company was not
agreeable to this proposal. The Union referred the dispute
under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 to
the Labour Court on 16th November, 1994. The worker agreed
to be bound by the decision of the Court. The Court
investigated the dispute on 13th of January, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. During the period of her employment with the Company the
worker was praised for her attitude and diligence to
work. It was recognised by local management that she
was a very good and dependable employee. The worker's
supervisor was informed of the dismissal and expressed
surprise and disappointment that the Company had
terminated her contract.
2. The worker was never spoken to or advised at any time by
management that her work was in any way unsatisfactory.
There were other workers with much less service and they
were not let go. The worker had the longest service of
the temporary employees and should have been offered a
permanent position with the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was employed as a temporary sales assistant
on 20th of March, 1991. The temporary position
continued on into the summer holiday period and then
into the Christmas and post-Christmas stocktaking
period. Most of the temporary staff are let go on
Christmas Eve while the remainder assist in stocktaking
up to the end of January. Once stocktaking is completed
these workers have their employment terminated.
2. The worker was always aware of the temporary nature of
her employment. The Company refutes any allegations
that the worker was unfairly dismissed. The worker was
let go along with the other temporary workers because
the Company no longer required their services. The
worker received 11 months of paid employment with the
Company which she might not otherwise have had. The
Company also provided the worker with a very good
reference on the termination of her employment.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is satisfied that the claimant carried out her duties
competently and that the management had no reason to find fault
with her work. Indeed this was acknowledged by the Company at the
Court hearing and in the reference supplied.
Having considered the written and oral submissions of both sides
the Court finds that the cessation of the claimants employment was
not unreasonable given the temporary nature of her contract.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
25th January, 1995 Finbarr Flood
L.W./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.