INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
J M H MANUFACTURING LIMITED
- AND -
Chairman: Mr McGrath
Employer Member: Mr Brennan
Worker Member: Mr Walsh
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company as a trainee dispatch clerk in May, 1996. Her employment was terminated in October, 1996. The worker claimed that she had been unfairly dismissed and referred the matter to the Labour Court on 15th November, 1996 under 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 6th January, 1997.
3. 1. The Company has acknowledged that it had no complaints regarding the worker's job performance. The worker enjoyed her work and had a good relationship with management and received an increase in pay several weeks before her dismissal.
2. The worker was unfairly criticised by management when she appeared at work wearing a ring in her eyebrow.
3. Prior to having her eyebrow pierced the worker discussed the matter with management. It was her understanding that management had no objection to her wearing a ring in her eyebrow.
4. Following the incident concerning the ring the worker was continually criticised by management. Several days after the incident the worker was sacked when a member of management lost her temper and dismissed her for no reason. The worker is concerned that her good name and good work record has been damaged by her unfair dismissal.
4. 1. The Company rejects the worker's claim that a member of management lost her temper and sacked her on the spot for no reason.
2. The worker failed to carry out an instruction given by management following which she was verbally abusive towards management. The worker was warned about her behaviour but persisted in accusing management of criticising her. The worker's behaviour was unacceptable and left management with no alternative but to dismiss her.
3. Management was concerned that the worker's attitude changed when it indicated to the worker that it was not acceptable to wear a ring in her eyebrow at work.
4. The worker was treated fairly by management at all times. The Company invested a considerable amount of time in training the worker. The decision to dismiss her was not taken lightly.
The Court has considered all of the issues raised by the parties in their oral and written submissions.
The Court finds thatin the circumstancesthe dismissal of the claimant was unjustified.
The Court recommends that she be paid two weeks pay by way of compensation and that, given the views expressed, she be provided with a reference which will more appropriately reflect the competence with which she carried out her duties during the period of employment.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
21st January, 1997______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.