INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
NOONAN SERVICES LTD
- AND -
Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Mr Grier
Worker Member: Mr Nash
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-047750-Ir-06/POB.
2. The Claimant was employed as a supervisor for 22 years by the Respondent. In December 2003 an irregularity with regard to the payment of wages came to the Respondent’s attention. This irregularity involved the site where the Claimant was the supervisor. In January 2004, an agreement was reached whereby the Claimant resigned and in return, the Respondent agreed to pay the Claimant €1,500 in full and final settlement of any outstanding or future claims against the Respondent.
- The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 23rd July, 2007 the Rights Commissioner issued his Recommendation as follows:-
“The Claimant alleges that she did not sign the Discharge Form consenting to her resignation. On the balance of probability I have to accept that the form contains the Claimant’s signature as she produced a copy of the cashed cheque for €1,500 from the Respondent which was mentioned in the agreement.
It is not a function of the Rights Commissioner Service to undertake independent investigations into the circumstances of dismissals other than to hear a case for unfair dismissal.
I note that the Respondent will provide the Claimant with a written reference. Indeed the Respondent went out of their way in the hearing to refer to the Claimant’s good track record prior to the incidents in late 2003.
As a result I find the Claimant’s case to be not well founded”.
On the 3rd September, 2007, the Worker appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 27th February, 2008.
3. 1.The Claimant accepts that she allowed her daughter leave work early but her daughter did not take a smoke break.
2.The Claimant did not fill out timesheets incorrectly for other workers. The Respondent has never produced the timesheets it claims the Claimant filled out incorrectly for other workers.
3.The Claimant claims that she did not sign the Discharge Form.
4. 1.The Labour Court has no jurisdiction to hear this dispute as the Claimant signed the Discharge Form.
2.This Claimant’s signature on the Discharge Form was witnessed by her Union official.
3.The Claimant subsequently cashed the €1,500 cheque.
It is noted that the initial dispute between the parties was resolved by way of a written agreement under which the Claimant accepted a sum of money in full and final settlement of all claims against the Company. From an industrial relations perspective the Court cannot reopen that aspect of the dispute from this remove.
It is however clear that the Claimant is deeply aggrieved at what she regards as a slur on her honesty arising from the circumstances in which her employment came to an end.
In all the circumstances of the case the Court recommends that the Company should now write to the Claimant advising her in suitable terms that her honesty is not in question.
The Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation is varied accordingly.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
06 March, 2008.______________________
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.