FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : EUPHAN TENISON - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment on the 19th October, 1996, as a housekeeper. She was employed by the family of the elderly occupant of a large house in the country to look after her. The worker's duties included cooking, some housework, general companionship and general care. The worker was dismissed in July, 1997. She claimed that her dismissal was unfair and on the 26th January, 1998 referred a complaint 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 in Cavan on the 11th November, 1998.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The worker got on extremely well with the elderly lady in her charge, and was informed by her daughter-in-law that the job was secure 'for as long as she wanted it'. The worker transferred from the United Kingdom with all her furniture and possessions in the expectation of long-term employment.
2. The worker carried out her duties in a competent, efficient manner and was complimented on her performance by visitors to the house.
3. The worker received very little time off from her position and found it difficult to get workers to replace her when needed, nevertheless, she enjoyed her work and coped well in difficult circumstances without complaint. She left the house only for short periods to do shopping.
4. The worker was dismissed from the employment in an arbitrary and unfair manner and contrary to the wishes of the elderly occupant. She seeks appropriate redress.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
1. After a period in the employment the family became aware that the level of care being provided by the claimant was clearly inadequate. The elderly occupant was left unattended for long periods while the worker left the house without notice to the family. She did not inform the owner of her whereabouts at times when she was supposed to be on duty, so that the owner could not reach or contact her directly if she needed to do so. In addition the house was not being cleaned properly.
2. As a result of these and other complaints the family lost confidence in the claimant as a live-in-carer for the elderly occupant. Absolute confidence in the employee is essential in this type of employment and particularly so as the family live in the United Kingdom and rely extensively on the carer when absent from this jurisdiction. In the circumstances it was impossible and inappropriate for the family to continue the claimant's employment.
3. The worker was given one month's notice (her statutory entitlements), but because of her persistent emotional requests to the occupant that her employment be continued the family decided that it would be preferable if the worker did not work the final two weeks, though she was paid in full for the month. In addition the family bought the worker's ticket to the United Kingdom and offered her transport to the Airport. This was refused.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions and the additional documents presented at the hearing.
The Court is satisfied that the termination of employment of the claimant was in accordance with normal procedures and concludes that she was not unfairly dismissed.
At the hearing, the employer indicated that she was willing to provide the claimant with a reference indicating the period during which the claimant was in her employment.
It was noted by the Court that the client who was cared for appeared to be satisfied with the claimant's performance.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
30th Novmber, 1998______________________
TOD/BCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.