INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
SWIFTCALL CENTRE LTD
(REPRESENTED BY WILLIAM FRY & CO. SOLICITORS)
- AND -
Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Mr Pierce
Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu
1. Termination of employment as per P45.
2. The worker claims that his employment was terminated by the Company despite the fact that his contract of employment stated "permanent". He also states that he should have received three months notice regarding the termination of his employment which is a condition in his contract of employment.
The Company rejects the worker's claim that his employment was terminated and states that as and from the 17th of April, 1998, the claimant failed to report for work. The worker was paid up to the end of May, 1998.
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 June, 2000.
3. 1. The worker was employed up to the end of May, 1998. However, his P45 indicated April, 1998, as his termination date.
2. The worker was advised in February, 1998, that all management jobs were safe.
3. Management requested the worker to operate from home until the new owners took over the Company.
4. The worker was given no notice or reasons why his employment was terminated.
4. 1. The worker's employment was not terminated. From the 17th of April, 1998, the worker ceased attending for work.
2. The worker's P45 was processed in due course and returned to him in June, 1998.
3. From April, 1998, the worker was employed by his brother and not by the Company.
The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions of the parties to this dispute.
In the Court's view there was no reasonable basis on which the employer could have concluded that the claimant had resigned or abandoned his employment. While he was absent from his place of work from mid-April, 1998, this was due to his involvement with a project to which he was assigned by the person to whom he had reported and whom he regarded as his manager.
Having regard to all the circumstances of this case the Court recommends that the claimant be paid compensation for loss of notice in an amount equal to three month's salary.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
20th June, 2000.______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.