INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
GRESHAM HOTEL PLC
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
- AND -
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)
Chairman: Ms Jenkinson
Employer Member: Mr Grier
Worker Member: Mr O'Neill
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR14802/03/JH.
2. The dispute concerns the manner in which the worker’s employment was terminated. The dismissal as a fact was disputed by the employer. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 5th February, 2004, the Rights Commissioner issued her recommendation as follows:
- “Based on the submissions made and for the reasons set out in the foregoing I recommend that a lump sum of €2,000 be made to the worker as a termination payment and in settlement of any claim by him in respect of the Gresham Hotel and the termination of his employment”.
On the 15 March, 2004 the Union appealed the Rights Commissioner's recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, on the grounds that dismissal had taken place and that the Company had not followed proper procedures. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 12th May, 2004.
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner’s recommendation)
3.1 The worker refutes the Company's contention that he resigned freely of his own volition following a discussion with the Manager concerning an incident of a car left in the Hotel car park.
2. It is the worker's contention that his version of the discussion with the Manager is the correct one and he is adamant that he did not resign but was dismissed.
3. The worker claims that the real reason for his dismissal was the fact that he had made a claim for outstanding wages, such as night shift allowance and overtime premiums.
4.1 The Company denies that the worker was unfairly dismissed. He resigned freely of his own violation and was not at any time dismissed.
2. The worker had voluntarily left his employment in December, 2000 and was reinstated at a later date. If the Company were unhappy with his performance or planned to dismiss him he would not have been reinstated.
The parties presented conflicting views on the background to the appellant's termination of employment. The Union is of the view that he was dismissed, whereas the employer contends that he left of his own volition. Having considered the written and oral submissions of both sides the Court concludes that due to a sequence of events, the appellant considered himself dismissed by his employer, when in fact no dismissal took place.
Having considered the Union's appeal, the Court does not uphold the appeal and consequently concurs with the findings of the Rights Commissioner who recommended that in all the circumstances of this case, that a payment of €2,000 should be paid in full and final settlement of all claims against the employer.
Therefore, the Court upholds the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.