INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
CENTRE PIECE RESTAURANT
(REPRESENTED BY DUNDON CALLANAN SOLICITORS)
- AND -
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)
Chairman: Mr Flood
Employer Member: Mr Pierce
Worker Member: Mr. Somers
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
2. The worker was employed by the Company for four months. She states that upon her return from holiday, her employer contacted her and requested a meeting. A meeting took place on the 16th of January, 2001 at which the employer informed the worker that her employment was terminated and she was paid one week's wages in lieu of notice. The employer refused to attend either a Rights Commissioner's hearing or a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. The worker referred the case to the Labour Court on the 25th of May, 2001 under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place in Limerick on the 18th of July, 2001. The Company declined an invitation to attend the Court.
- The employer's decision to terminate the worker's employment is both unfair and unreasonable. There were no legitimate grounds upon which to base this decision.
- The contract of employment could only be ended by this employer, upon receipt of notification from the worker that she intended leaving.
- It is unacceptable for the employer to pre-empt the workers decision to terminate her employment.
The employer did not attend the Court hearing. A solicitor on behalf of the employer wrote to the Court stating that"In provisions of the Industrial Relations Act 1969, determinations of the Labour Court are not binding and on this basis we do not propose to attend the sitting of the Labour Court".
The Court considered the written and oral submissions made by the claimant in which she stated that the reason she was sacked was because she was considering leaving the employment.
She claimed her work performance had never been questioned and that her employer had never spoken to her about any shortcomings. She further stated that she had committed to her employer that in the event that she did decide to leave she would give ample notice to allow a replacement to be found.
The claimant was not given a contract of employment and was not informed of any probationary period.
The Court, having considered the information before it finds that the dismissal was unfair and recommends that the employer pay the claimant £1,500 in compensation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
26th July, 2001______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Helena McDermott, Court Secretary.