INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
- AND -
Chairman: Ms Jenkinson
Employer Member: Mr Pierce
Worker Member: Mr Rorke
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR582/99JH.
2. The dispute concerns a worker who was employed by the Company from September, 1998 until his employment terminated on the 21st of June, 1999. He worked in the capacity of base controller on a rate of £6 per hour.
On the 19th of June, 1999, arrangements were put in place by the employer whereby, if a controller was unavailable for his shift, the shift would be covered by one colleague remaining on for an extra half shift and a second colleague commencing a half shift early.
On the 21st of June, 1999, a controller rang in sick and the worker was asked to cover for him in line with the new working arrangements. However, for family reasons he could not so do and he claims that he was told to leave the premises and not to return and, accordingly, that he was unfairly dismissed. The claim was rejected by the employer. The matter was referred, by the worker, to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation.
The Rights Commissioner concluded that the position adopted by the employer was unreasonable, that a dismissal did occur and that that dismissal was unfair.
The Rights Commissioner recommended that the worker should receive £800 in full and final settlement of his claim for unfair dismissal (including payment of notice).
The worker appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation to the Labour Court on the 24th of November, 1999, in accordance with Section 13 (9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1989. The Court heard the appeal on the 10th of January, 2000. The employer was not in attendance nor was he represented at the appeal hearing.
3. 1. Arising from the discussion regarding new shifts and rules for drivers and controllers, the new shifts were posted on the board but details of the new rules were not.
2. When the colleague rang in sick, the worker, who was to finish at 5pm, indicated that he could stay on until 6pm but was told he had to remain until 9pm or else he should leave the base and not return.
3. Having indicated that, due to a prior commitment, he couldn't stay on past 6pm, the worker was told to leave and he was informed that his P45 would be posted to him.
4. Prior to this incident, the worker was always flexible and co-operative in working any hours that were asked of him.
The employer failed to appear or be represented at the Labour Court hearing. The Court upholds the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
26th January, 2000.______________________
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.