FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MARTIN HANBURY - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR413/99/JH.
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue before the Court concerns a claim of alleged unfair dismissal. The worker concerned was employed as a shop assistant/manager from the 5th of November, 1998 to the 11th of January, 1999. The worker referred a claim of unfair dismissal to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. Two hearings took place on the 5th of July, 1999 and the 2nd of May, 2000. The Company failed to attend or to be represented at either hearing. The Rights Commissioner issued her recommendation on the 15th of May, 2000 as follows:
"On the basis of the uncontested evidence of (the worker), she was unfairly dismissed. I note that she was unemployed for six months after the dismissal. I recommend that she receive £1500 compensation in full and final settlement of her claim for unfair dismissal, for the manner of the dismissal and for losses arising from the dismissal".
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's recommendation).
The Company appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on the 11th of October, 2000. The Employer was unable to attend the hearing and a representative made his submission. The Court refused her request for an adjournment.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company contests the claim of unfair dismissal. The worker was dismissed for theft.
2. The worker was arrested and charged by the Gardai. As paperwork could not be found the case was dismissed in the District Court, but the Gardai are to have the case reheard. The Gardai have video evidence and three statements of guilt from the worker admitting theft.
3. The worker claimed that she was unemployed for six months following her dismissal. However, the Company believes that she found employment in the St. Stephen's Green Shopping Centre soon afterwards.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker denies the charge of theft and of making statements of guilt to the Gardai.
2. The case in the District Court was dismissed as no evidence was presented. Neither the Employer nor the arresting Garda attended the final Court hearing.
3. The worker worked diligently helping to open a new shop in December, 1998. As a manager she worked long hours, often alone, due to staff problems. She has had to pursue the Company through the Rights Commissioner's service and the Employment Appeals Tribunal to claim wages and holiday pay due to her.
DECISION:
The Court notes that the employer failed to attend the original or resumed hearing before the Rights Commissioner and that the Rights Commissioner made her recommendation based on the uncontested evidence of the claimant.
In a written submission in support of his appeal the employer made allegations of serious misconduct against the claimant in justification of her dismissal. The employer failed to attend the hearing and his representative was unable to adduce any direct evidence to substantiate the allegations or otherwise justify the dismissal.
The claimant denied the allegations made against her.
In these circumstances the Court finds no basis on which it could interfere with the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner. The recommendation is affirmed and the appeal is disallowed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
24th October, 2000______________________
D.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.