INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
- AND -
Chairman: Ms Jenkinson
Employer Member: Mr Keogh
Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
2. The worker commenced employment with the Company as an office administrator on the 4th September, 2000 and was dismissed on the 10th of November, 2000. The worker alleges that she was unfairly dismissed by the Company.
Management states that the worker was dismissed because she diverted business away from the Company to another source. The Company had no option but to dismiss the worker.
The worker vehemently rejects the allegations of any wrong doing.
The worker referred the dispute to the Labour Court under Section 20 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on the 8th of December, 2000.
3. 1. The worker refutes the allegation that she diverted business away from the Company to another source.
2. The worker was not given either a written or verbal warning concerning her work performance.
3. The worker is seeking an apology from the company and an explanation as to why her employment was terminated.
4. The worker was happy and contented in her job and got on well with those she worked with.
5. The worker is seeking compensation for the distress caused to her as a result of her dismissal.
4. 1. The worker was in breach of company policy by diverting business away to another source.
2. The worker admitted that she passed on company business to a third party.
3. The Company had no alternative but to dismiss the worker because of a breach of trust.
4. Management is considering taking legal proceedings against the claimant to recoup any financial loss to the Company as a result of her indiscretion.
The Court has given serious consideration to both the written and oral submissions of the parties to this dispute, which has resulted in the termination of the claimant's employment.
The Court having questioned the parties is absolutely clear that the claimant's actions were not an attempt to defraud the company. The Court is of the view that her actions in hindsight may have been ill conceived and misguided, and that management should have been more objective in their analysis of the facts.
The Court accepts that there was a breakdown of trust based on the claimant's actions but instant dismissal with all its associated connotations was unwise particularly given that the employee was on probation.
In all the circumstances the Court recommends that the respondent pay the claimant one month's pay in lieu of notice, plus any outstanding holiday payment in full and final settlement of this claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.