INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
LEIXLIP CHILDCARE SERVICES T/A LITTLE HARVARD CRECHE
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
- AND -
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)
Chairman: Ms Jenkinson
Employer Member: Mr Grier
Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu
1. Alleged Unfair Dismissal.
2. The dispute concerns a worker who commenced employment with the Creche as a chef in September, 2005 Her hours of work were 27.5 per week and her gross rate of pay was €300. She did not receive a written contract of employment .The worker successfully completed her probationary period in December, 2005. The worker was dismissed on the 20th March, 20006. The Union claimed that she was unfairly dismissed and on the 25th May, 2006 submitted a complaint to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Union agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the 28th September, 2006.
3. The worker performed her duties efficiently, was punctual and was not the subject of disciplinary proceedings. She carried out all duties assigned to her.
2. The Company did not afford the worker due process and did not adhere to fair procedure in its treatment of her. She had no representation at any stage in the process. In this case there were not substantial grounds warranting the dismissal.
4. 1. After careful consideration of the Company's financial position Management decided that the Creche did not require a full-time cook and a decision was taken to make the position of cook redundant. The cook's duties were amalgamated into the duties of the Creche Manager's role.
2. The claimant was informed of the situation at a private meeting on the 20th March, 2006. The claimant was paid her statutory entitlements.
The claim before the Court concerns the worker's allegation that she was unfairly dismissed. Having examined the submissions of both sides the Court accepts that the reason for her termination of employment on 20th March, 2006 was due to the Company's need for fewer employees and in that regard was a legitimate reason for termination.
However, the Court takes account of the fact that the worker was not supplied with written terms and conditions of employment and was not considered for a suitable vacancy, which occurred within a matter of weeks following the redundancy. Taking these and other factors into account the Court is of the view that the Company's approach to this matter fell short of good employment practices and consequently recommends that she should be compensated by the payment of a sum of €2000, in full and final settlement of the claim.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
3rd October, 2006
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.