INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
INISHOWEN GATEWAY HOTEL
(REPRESENTED BY INISHOWEN GATEWAY HOTEL)
- AND -
Chairman: Ms Jenkinson
Employer Member: Mr Doherty
Worker Member: Mr Nash
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-035003-IR-05/TB.
2. The Claimant was employed by the Hotel in a Housekeeping capacity from September 2004 until the 29th May 2005. She worked approximately 20 hours per week. In January 2005 the Claimant had several disagreements with her Supervisor which she raised with her Manager who said he would do something about it.
The Claimant alleges that the Manager failed to do anything about her complaints and that she would have to put up with it. She was subsequently issued with a verbal warning which she refused to accept. A further meeting took place with the General Manger to try and diffuse the situation. It resulted in the issuing of a written warning to the Worker. She refused to accept the written warning and was then dismissed.
The issue was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. His recommendation issued as follows:-
It was acknowledged by the respondent that no written procedures were in place by which the claimant could ventilate any grievance or problem she had in the employment.
On procedural grounds I find that this dismissal was unfair and I recommend that the claimant be paid €750 in compensation.
The Worker appealed the amount of compensation awarded to her by the Rights Commissioner to the Labour Court on the 10th February, 2006, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act,1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 24th October, 2006.
3. 1. The Worker stated that there was a lack of procedures concerning grievances. She further stated that she did not receive any written terms of employment.
2. The Worker claims that the written warning was issued to her following her request for a copy of the earlier verbal warning.
3. The Worker claims that as a result of her dismissal she suffered a loss of self esteem, confidence and self worth and she had to receive medical treatment for anxiety and depression.
4. 1. The Worker was issued with a formal, verbal warning concerning her work performance and conduct in May 2005. She refused to accept that there was any justification for the warning and harassed her supervisor in this regard.
2. The General Manager felt he had no alternative but to dismiss the Worker as she had failed to accept any of the warnings she had received.
3. Management accept that they did not provide the Worker with her terms and conditions of employment, neither was she handed a copy of the grievance procedures.
Having considered the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court is of the view that the appellant was not afforded proper procedures to air her grievance and that the disciplinary procedures adopted by the Company were inappropriate and were not carried out in accordance with Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures S.I. No 146 of 2000.
The Court concurs with the Rights Commissioner’s finding that, her dismissal was unfair and in all the circumstances of this case, has decided to vary his recommendation. Accordingly, the Court recommends that the claimant should be compensated by the payment of €1,750 in full and final settlement of the claim before the Court.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
2nd November, 2006______________________
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.