Labour Court Database
__________________________________________________________________________________
File Number: CD93553
Case Number: LCR14253
Section / Act: S20(1)
Parties: ST. LAURENCE HOTEL - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
|
Subject:
Dispute concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
The Court, notes that the Hotel did not attend the hearing and had
notified the Court of its view that the claimant was not unfairly
dismissed.
Having considered the Union's submission the Court is of the view
that the claimant was treated unfairly and accordingly the Court
recommends that he be paid #600 as compensation.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93553 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14253
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: ST. LAURENCE HOTEL
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Hotel employed the worker as a 1st year commis chef on
2nd November, 1992. The worker was "let go" on 24th January,
1993. The Hotel stated that it could not keep him on because of a
fall-off in business. It refused to discuss the dismissal with
the Union or to go through the normal industrial relations
machinery (details supplied).
The Union referred the claim to the Labour Court on 22nd
September, 1993, under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. The Hotel informed the Court that it would not attend
the investigation as the worker's employment was terminated due to
adverse trading conditions. A Labour Court investigation took
place on 8th November, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker left a permanent position to join the Hotel.
He was clearly informed that he was being offered a permanent
position. The Hotel used the worker to get over its busy
Christmas period and then disgarded him without any
consideration of the effect which it would have on his future
career. A commis chef of the same year who commenced
employment after the worker, retained his employment when the
worker was dismissed. The worker is seeking compensation for
his loss of employment.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, notes that the Hotel did not attend the hearing and had
notified the Court of its view that the claimant was not unfairly
dismissed.
Having considered the Union's submission the Court is of the view
that the claimant was treated unfairly and accordingly the Court
recommends that he be paid #600 as compensation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
23rd November, 1993 Evelyn Owens
J.F./A.L. _______________
Deputy Chairman
NOTE
ENQUIRIES CONCERNING THIS RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BY ADDRESSED TO
MR. JEROME FORDE, COURT SECRETARY.