INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
MEDICARE HEALTH & LIVING LIMITED
- AND -
Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Mr Murphy
Worker Member: Mr Nash
1. Alleged unfair selection for redundancy.
2. The Worker commenced her employment with the Company on the 10th July 2006 as 'Receptionist/Administrative Support'. On the 18th May, 2007, the Worker was informed by the Managing Director that she was being made redundant because the 'position of Receptionist/Administrative Support is now surplus to our requirements'.
The Worker claims that although she was initially informed by the Managing Director that she would receive one month's pay in lieu of notice she only received one week's pay in lieu of notice. In June, 2007, the Company advertised the position of 'Receptionist/Administrator' in a local newspaper. The Worker claims that she was unfairly selected for redundancy.
On the 26th October, 2007, the Worker referred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 28th February, 2008. The Company did not attend the Labour Court hearing. The Worker agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
3. 1. The worker was given no warning that she was to be made redundantbut was told to leave with immediate effect. She was not given any opportunity to argue her case as to why she was chosen rather than colleagues with less experience.
2. The worker was offered no alternate work - e.g. part-time work.
3.The worker had received no written or verbal warnings during her employment.
The Employer declined to attend the hearing before the Court or to otherwise indicate its position in relation to the subject-matter of this dispute.
Having heard the uncontradicted evidence of the Claimant the Court is satisfied that there was no real situation of redundancy when the worker's employment was terminated and that the Claimant's employment was terminated without any real or substantial justification. Moreover, the Claimant was promised payment of one month's salary but the Employer resiled from this commitment and merely paid one week's pay.
The Court is satisfied that the conduct of the Employer in relation to the Claimant fell far short of the standard of reasonableness and adherence to fair procedures which would be expected from a reasonable employer. Accordingly, the Court is satisfied that the Claimant was unfairly dismissed and should be appropriately compensated.
In all the circumstances of the case, the Court recommends that the Claimant be paid compensation in the amount of €5,000 in respect of unfair dismissal. The amount should include payment of the outstanding portion of the month's pay in lieu of notice promised to her by the Employer. The Court further recommends that the Claimant be furnished with a suitable reference by the Employer as previously sought by the Claimant.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
19th March, 2008.______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.