INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
JULIANSTOWN INN LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY MAURICE LEAHY SOLICITORS)
- AND -
Chairman: Ms Jenkinson
Employer Member: Mr Pierce
Worker Member: Mr Rorke
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation 51/99JH.
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Julianstown Inn as a kitchen porter in August, 1998. Her employment ceased when, following an incident involving the chef in January, 1999, she was told to go home. On the 7th of March, 1999, the worker accepted an invitation from the employer to return to her previous position. Following a further incident on the 20th of March, 1999, the worker's employment was terminated. The worker claimed that she had been unfairly dismissed and referred the matter to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. The Rights Commissioner's conclusions and recommendation are as follows:
"It is regrettable that the employer failed to attend or to be represented. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I must accept that the worker was unfairly dismissed on two separate occasions by the Julianstown Inn. Compensation appears to be the only appropriate re-dress. I note with concern the absence of a contract or payslips.
On the basis of the evidence presented, I find in favour of the worker and recommend that she should receive £500 by way of compensation in full and final settlement of this claim."
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation)
The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation was appealed by the Julianstown Inn to the Labour Court on the 19th of July, 1999 under Section 13 (9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Labour Court heard the appeal in Drogheda on the 27th of October, 1999.
3. 1. The worker received no complaints from Management concerning her work performance prior to the incident in January, 1999 and Management has acknowledged that her work was good.
2. The worker was conscientious in her approach to her work. She was reliable and performed work over and above her regular duties.
3. The worker was unfairly dismissed from her employment and is concerned that her reputation has been damaged.
4. 1. The worker was not dismissed but left of her own accord on both occasions. Accordingly, no dismissal unfair or otherwise took place.
2. A disagreement arose over the level of work to be done. There was no intention on the employer's part to dismiss the worker.
3. The employer's failure to attend the Rights Commissioner's hearing on the 12th of April, 1999, occurred on foot of assurances given by the worker that she did not intend to proceed with her application to the Rights Commissioner.
Having heard the submission of both parties the Court is of the view that the appellant's employment terminated in an unfair and inappropriate manner. The Court rejects the appeal and upholds the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
10th November, 1999.______________________
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.