INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
KC EXPRESS COURIERS LIMITED
- AND -
Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Mr McHenry
Worker Member: Mr O'Neill
1. Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR3084/00/JH.
2. The appeal concerns a worker who commenced employment with the Company as a base controller on the 20th March, 2000. His employment ended on the 20th November, 2000. The worker claimed that he was unfairly dismissed and referred the issue to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. On the 23rd February, 2001, the Rights Commissioner issued her recommendation as follows:-
"I recommend that K.C. Express Couriers Limited pay the worker £800 compensation for the loss of his employment arising from the re-organisation of the Company and the related cut-backs."
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's recommendation)
On the 5th March, 2001, the Company appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court. The Court heard the appeal on the 22nd May, 2001.
3. 1. The worker was employed on a casual basis from March, 2000, as a base controller. At his own insistence he was paid as a sub-contractor as he advised the employer that he had some outstanding issues to reconcile with the Revenue Commissioners. The worker was made permanent in May, 2000, and was informed that the job was initially on a temporary basis.
2. Due to internal changes within the Company, Management was forced to reduce staff numbers in November, 2000, and as the claimant was the last person employed in the Company, he was let go. At the termination of his employment the worker was offered alternative employment but he refused the offer.
3. The employer contends that the compensation of £800 recommended by the Rights Commissioner is very high, considering that the worker's employment lasted for only six months. He also refused the offer of alternative employment which would have resulted in no loss.
4. 1. The worker's employment was terminated when he reported for duty at 8.30 a.m. on the 20th November, 2000. He had been on sick leave for the previous week and had notified the employer three times during that week so the employer was aware of the situation. The employer refused to accept the doctor's certificate which the worker attempted to give him.
2. The worker was not given notice of termination or pay in lieu and the reason which the employer gave for dismissing him was that the Company could not afford to keep him on. While the employer told the worker that the Company was down sizing it appeared to be expanding its operation. Only three weeks before the worker was laid off the Company employed a sales rep to create new business. A few weeks prior to termination the worker was asked to book his annual leave for 2001, which implied his employment was long term. The worker contends that his employment was terminated because he was on sick leave for one week.
3. The worker was given a cheque for £450 but there was no indication as to what this covered. He was not given a pay slip during the employment and the P45 sent to him two months later had wrong employment details recorded leading to incorrect tax deductions.
Having considered the submissions of the parties in this case the Court considers that therecommendation of the Rights Commissioner is reasonable having regard to all the circumstances of this case.
Accordingly, the appeal is disallowed and the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is affirmed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
6th June, 2001______________________
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.