Labour Court Database
__________________________________________________________________________________
File Number: CD93433
Case Number: LCR14206
Section / Act: S20(1)
Parties: ROLY'S BISTRO - and - MS BERNADETTE ROYLE
|
Subject:
Dispute concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
5. The Court regrets that the employer in this case, Roly's
Bistro, did not regard the livelihood of one of its employees of
sufficient concern to attend the Court hearing regarding the
termination of her employment. Instead the employer submitted a
cursory written statement.
Having considered this statement against the evidence presented by
the claimant, the Court is satisfied that the behaviour of the
Management in relation to the termination of her employment was
unprofessional, insensitive and unreasonable.
In the circumstances, the Court considers that she was unfairly
dismissed. Because of the time lapse since her dismissal and the
likelihood that a working relationship cannot be re-established
the Court recommends that the Company pay the claimant #600 by way
of compensation and provide her with a satisfactory work
reference. The Court further recommends that the Company meet its
obligations under this Recommendation without delay.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93433 RECOMMENDATION NO LCR14206
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1)
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: ROLY'S BISTRO
and
MS BERNADETTE ROYLE
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The claimant commenced employment in Roly's Bistro in
November, 1992 and her employment terminated on the 12th
March, 1993. At the end of February, 1993 the claimant was on
sick leave and notified the employer to that effect. When she
telephoned to notify the employer that she was returning to
work she was informed that a casual worker had been taken on
for the week. Subsequently, her employment was terminated.
The employer maintains that the worker had resigned from the
job.
2. The claimant referred the dispute to the Labour Court
under Section 20(1), of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
The Court investigated the dispute on the 1st September, 1993.
The employer did not attend at the hearing.
CLAIMANT'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The claimant informed the Company that she was out sick
and would provide a sick medical certificate on return.
2. The claimant did not state that she was resigning from
her job.
3. Management told the claimant that they were happy with
her work.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claimant telephoned the Company and informed them
that she would not be returning to work following her sick
leave.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court regrets that the employer in this case, Roly's
Bistro, did not regard the livelihood of one of its employees of
sufficient concern to attend the Court hearing regarding the
termination of her employment. Instead the employer submitted a
cursory written statement.
Having considered this statement against the evidence presented by
the claimant, the Court is satisfied that the behaviour of the
Management in relation to the termination of her employment was
unprofessional, insensitive and unreasonable.
In the circumstances, the Court considers that she was unfairly
dismissed. Because of the time lapse since her dismissal and the
likelihood that a working relationship cannot be re-established
the Court recommends that the Company pay the claimant #600 by way
of compensation and provide her with a satisfactory work
reference. The Court further recommends that the Company meet its
obligations under this Recommendation without delay.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
28th September, 1993 ---------------
P. O'C/U.S. Chairman
NOTE:
ENQUIRIES CONCERNING THIS RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO
MR PAUL O'CONNOR, COURT SECRETARY.