INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
GARDEAN HOSPITALITY LTD T/A SIZZLERS RESTAURANT
- AND -
Chairman: Ms Jenkinson
Employer Member: Mr Doherty
Worker Member: Mr. Somers
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR13955/03/GF.
2. The worker commenced employment on the 26th May, 2002, as a general worker. She was suspended for one week on the 20th January, 2003 and subsequently dismissed on the 7th February, 2003. The worker alleges that her dismissal was unfair.
Management reject the claim that the worker was unfairly dismissed.
The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 18th September, 2003 the Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation as follows:-
"In the unexplained absence of the employer I decide that the claimant was unfairly dismissed. I recommend she be paid compensation in the amount of €3, 000 in full and final settlement of the matter."
On the 8th October, 2003, the Company appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place in Waterford on the 4th November, 2003.
3. 1. The Company terminated the worker's employment because of continuous complaints from other members of staff in relation to the worker's behaviour towards them.
2.The worker wrote a threatening letter to a customer of the restaurant.She was given several verbal warnings regarding her behaviour. Management had no alternative but to let her go.
3. The worker was on probation when she was dismissed. She was paid one week's pay in lieu of notice.
4. 1. The worker was assaulted by a customer while in the employment of the company.
2. The worker never received any pay slips while employed by the company. She had to wait for a month before she got back her P45.
3. The worker was happy and contented in her job and claims that she was unfairly dismissed.
4The worker rejects the claim that she accused another employee of stealing money.
The Court has considered the submissions of both parties and is of the view that the dismissal of the worker was procedurally flawed. Following an incident at the workplace where the worker claimed that she was accosted by a person unconnected with the workplace, she was suspended for a period of one week. Subsequently, she was informed by telephone that her employment was terminated. While the Court is satisfied that the worker was given oral warnings during the course of her employment, her employment was terminated in circumstances which do not comply with the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures S.I. No. 146 of 2000, consequently the Court recommends that she should be paid compensation of €1,500.
The Rights Commissioner's recommendation is varied accordingly.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
13th November, 2003______________________
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.