Labour Court Database
__________________________________________________________________________________
File Number: CD89799
Case Number: AD8989
Section / Act: S13(9)
Parties: CYCLONE SECURITY GOLF AND COUNTY CLUB - and - A WORKER
|
Subject:
Appeal by the worker against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. B.C. 215/89, concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
In the light of the above I must uphold the claimant's case
and state that the dismissal was unfair and I recommend that
Cyclone Securities Golf and County Club should pay to the
worker the sum of #500 and that this be accepted by him in
full and final settlement of all claims on the Company."
The worker was referred to by name in the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation.
4. The worker appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court
under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The
Court heard the appeal on the 1st December, 1989. The Company did
not attend the Court hearing.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The worker appealed the recommendation as he considers he
was not treated fairly over such a serious dispute.
2. The worker could not accept the recommendation as the
condition. ".... accepted by him in full and final settlement
of all claims on the Company" would have meant that he would
not have been able to pursue a claim for Minimum Notice which
was ongoing with the Employment Appeals Tribunal at the time
the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation was issued. The
Employment Appeals Tribunal has since issued an order in his
favour which the Company has complied with.
DECISION:
6. The Court having considered the submission of the complainant
does not find that there were any substantial grounds put forward
to alter the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner.
The Court so decides.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89799 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD8989
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: CYCLONE SECURITY GOLF AND COUNTY CLUB
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the worker against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. B.C. 215/89, concerning alleged unfair
dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was initially employed as a kitchen
porter on the 24th January, 1989. He was subsequently transferred
to the maintenance of the golf club.
3. Following his failure to attend work on Monday 24th July, 1989
he was dismissed. The worker referred his case to a Rights
Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. The Rights
Commissioner investigated the case on the 10th October, 1989, and
on the 26th October, he issued the following recommendation:
"Findings
Having investigated the matter and having given full and
careful consideration to the points made by both parties I
have come to the following conclusions:
1. While it is undeniable that on at least two Mondays in
July the worker had failed to attend for work I am
satisfied that the second occasion i.e. the 24/7/1989
was an occasion when he had justifiable reasons for
his failure to attend.
2. I therefore must come to the conclusion that the
dismissal of the worker was in all the circumstances
unfair.
Recommendation
In the light of the above I must uphold the claimant's case
and state that the dismissal was unfair and I recommend that
Cyclone Securities Golf and County Club should pay to the
worker the sum of #500 and that this be accepted by him in
full and final settlement of all claims on the Company."
The worker was referred to by name in the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation.
4. The worker appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court
under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The
Court heard the appeal on the 1st December, 1989. The Company did
not attend the Court hearing.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The worker appealed the recommendation as he considers he
was not treated fairly over such a serious dispute.
2. The worker could not accept the recommendation as the
condition. ".... accepted by him in full and final settlement
of all claims on the Company" would have meant that he would
not have been able to pursue a claim for Minimum Notice which
was ongoing with the Employment Appeals Tribunal at the time
the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation was issued. The
Employment Appeals Tribunal has since issued an order in his
favour which the Company has complied with.
DECISION:
6. The Court having considered the submission of the complainant
does not find that there were any substantial grounds put forward
to alter the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
___________________
__21st__December, 1989. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.