LCR15411

FULL RECOMMENDATION CD/96/555 RECOMMENDATIONNO.LCR15411 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : IRISH FILM CENTRE (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGrath Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr Walsh

SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning working conditions.


BACKGROUND:

2. The dispute concerns a worker who commenced employment as a barman on the 11th April, 1996. His employment terminated on the 20th August, 1996. The worker claimed that he was unfairly dismissed. Management maintained that the worker had merely been placed on suspension. The worker sought to refer the dispute to a Rights Commissioner for investigation but the Company objected to such an investigation. On the 11th October, 1996 the worker referred the dispute to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the 16th December, 1996.


WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. The worker had been employed in the bar trade for 16 years and had extensive experience. From the outset of commencing work at the Irish Film Centre he found the attitude of his immediate Supervisor to be very aggressive, ordering him around continuously, and admonishing him unnecessarily in front of other staff.

2. On the 21st August the worker was advised by his supervisor that she was not happy with his work and was 'taking him off the roster'. On enquiring if he was sacked she replied "yes". At a later stage the worker received his P45. While the worker was advised by Management on the 29th August that he was 'only suspended' nevertheless his P45 was dated the 21st August. He could see no logic in this course of action.




3. The worker had a good relationship with other staff and customers and was diligent in the performance of his duties. He did not previously receive either written or verbal warnings. The worker was dismissed because his immediate supervisor took a personal dislike to him. The worker has been unfairly treated and seeks appropriate compensation.


COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. The worker concerned was employed as required on a casual basis. His hours were rostered from week to week depending on the needs of the business. During the course of his employment a number of complaints were made to Management regarding his behaviour which related to customers and staff.

2. On the 21st August Management advised the worker that he was being taken off the bar roster until the complaints were investigated. The worker refused to accept that complaints had been made, accused Management of sacking him and left the meeting.

3. At a subsequent meeting the worker was informed that he had not been sacked, merely removed from the roster. He was offered the option to return to work contingent upon the complaints being dealt with. This offer was refused and the Company accepted that the worker was resigning.



RECOMMENDATION:

The Court has fully considered all of the issues raised by the parties in their oral and written submissions.

The Court finds that the manner in which this employee was treated was unacceptable and recommends that he be compensated in the amount of £250.



Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Tom McGrath
8th January, 1997______________________
T.O'D./S.G.Deputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.