INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
JOHN L MULVEY AND COMPANY SOLICITORS
- AND -
1. Appeal by the worker against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. BC98/96.
2. 1. The worker commenced employment with the Company in a temporary capacity on the 8th August, 1995. She was subsequently offered a permanent position as receptionist which she accepted. Her other duties involved typing, photocopying and keeping the filing system up to date.
2. On the 12th February, 1996 the worker was dismissed. The worker claims that her dismissal was unfair. Management informed the worker that it was "not working out" and dismissed her. It also claimed that the worker was on probation. The worker refutes the Company's claim.
3. The worker referred the dispute to a Rights Commissioner. The Rights Commissioner investigated the dispute on the 10th May, 1996 and recommended as follows:-
"In the light of the above my recommendation is that the
Company should pay the worker the sum of £1,600 and
this be accepted by her in full and final settlement of all
claims on the employer in relation to her employment and
4. The worker appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 19th June, 1996. The Court heard the appeal on the 14th October, 1996 under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
5. The Company indicated by letter that it would not be attending the Court hearing.
3. 1. The worker performed her duties at all times in an efficient and diligent manner. Her dismissal was both unfair and unreasonable.
2. The worker never received any written or verbal warnings regarding her work performance.
3. The post of receptionist was a permanent one. The worker rejects management's claim that she was on probation.
4. The worker has been unable to secure alternative full-time employment since her dismissal.
The Court considered a letter from the employer of the Company seeking an adjournment of the case.
The Court noted the employer had previously indicated that arrangements made previously had not been convenient to him.
The Court decided not to adjourn the case and decided to proceed as programmed.
In arriving at this decision the Court also noted Mr. Mulvey's representative had also indicated that if the case was to proceed the Court should note that Mr. Mulvey had nothing further to add than the submission made to the Rights Commissioner.
The Court finds the claimant had no written contract with the Company despite the provisions of the terms and conditions of the Employment Act, 1994 and there was no evidence that she was employed on a trial basis or on probation.
The Court further finds that the claimant was not given any warnings regarding shortcomings in her performance of her work or any reasons why she was being dismissed.
In all the circumstances the Court finds the claimant was dismissed unfairly and recommends she be compensated in the amount of £2,500.
The claimant, should she so request it, should be given a suitable reference.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
24th October, 1996______________________
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.