This article is from page 3 of the 2008-07-08 edition of The Clare People. OCR mistakes are to be expected so download the original SWF or the rendered page 3 JPG
THE Labour Court has ruled that a Shannon-based company unfairly dismissed an employee who brought his wife home after she was dis- missed by the same firm.
The court has recommended that Reagecon Diagnostics Ltd pay the man – who is not named – €5,000 in compensation.
According to the Labour Court, the worker’s wife was dismissed due to complaints being made against her.
The report states: “The worker
claims to have brought his wife home on the day she was dismissed as she was very upset. He claims he was given permission to do so by his su- pervisor on the day.
“It is further contended that when he returned to work, after three days of pre-arranged annual leave, he was dismissed. His position is that man- agement informed him that he had effectively resigned when he left the premises with his wife on the day of her dismissal.”
Last January, the worker referred the issue to the Labour Court and
agreed to be bound by the court’s recommendation. The company de- clined an invitation to attend the Labour Court investigation into the dispute on the basis that there was no dispute and it would not take part in or be bound by the court’s recom- mendation.
At the Labour Court hearing in April, the worker argued he received permission from his supervisor to take his wife home on the day of her dismissal.
The worker was subsequently ab- sent on pre-arranged annual leave
and was summarily dismissed on his return to work.
The report goes on, “Management claimed at the time that the worker had resigned his position on the same day his wife was dismissed. This is not the case.
“The worker attempted to explain the situation to management on his return to work but was given twen- ty minutes to leave the company’s DERN ee
In its recommendation, the Labour Court inspector stated, “The court finds it regrettable that the employer
failed to attend the hearing to inves- tigate the worker’s claim; neither did it furnish a written statement setting out its position.
“On the basis of the oral and writ- ten submission made by Ms Mairead Carey BL on behalf of the worker, the court is satisfied that his employ- ment was terminated in an unfair and inappropriate manner.
“In the circumstances the court recommends that the employer pay the claimant compensation in the amount of €5,000 in full and final settlement of his claim.”