INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
- AND -
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Association as a part-time cleaner on the 28th February, 1996. She worked approximately 14 hours per week. The worker was dismissed on the 16th April, 1996. She claimed that her dismissal was unfair and on the 17th June, 1996 referred the issue 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. A Court hearing was held on the 18th July 1996. The Association by letter to the Court, dated 1st July 1996, declined an invitation to attend the hearing.
3. 1. The worker concerned was originally employed on a trial basis for two days and was then offered part-time work, Monday to Friday ( 6 to 8p.m.) and Sunday 9a.m. to 2p.m. She reported directly to her supervisor.
2. The employee was conscientious in carrying out her duties, was always punctual, neat and tidy, and got on very well with colleagues. She received no warnings, either written or verbal, about her work performance.
3. On arriving for duty on the 16th April 1996 the worker was handed a letter of dismissal by Management. On enquiring from her immediate Supervisor to ascertain an explanation, none was forthcoming, and the Supervisor seemed taken aback by the worker's treatment.
4. The worker feels that she was treated in a most unjust and unfair fashion by being arbitrarily dismissed without reason or explanation. She was very angry and upset by the dismissal. The worker's confidence is diminished and her reputation is impugned.
5. The worker seeks a written apology from the Association together with an explanation for her dismissal.
An Oige did not attend the Court but in a letter to the Court stated that "in this instance they do not believe that there is a case to answer".
Based on the information before it the Court has no doubt that there is a case to answer.
The method of this abrupt dismissal, without an explanation of any sort, in a letter signed by an official who subsequently stated that he had been instructed to dismiss but did not know why, was totally unacceptable.
The Court recommends that An Oige meet with the individual to explain the reason for her dismissal and pay the claimant £100 lump sum in compensation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
29th July, 1996______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.