Up Arrow
 
 
Question Icon
 

Select an option from the dropdown list and press GO

 
Question Icon
 

Select an option from the dropdown list and then press GO

 
 
 

2002

Information Icon Water Mark
Up Arrow

Add to Binder allows you to add Workplace Relations content to your personal binder for viewing or printing later.

Binder icon image Binder

To access your binder, click the Binder link at the top of the page.

 
 

LCR17363

FULL RECOMMENDATION

CD/02/323
RECOMMENDATIONNO.LCR17363
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969



PARTIES :
STAUNTON'S SPORTS / ELVERY'S

- AND -

CHRIS DOWLING
(REPRESENTED BY MANDATE)


DIVISION :

Chairman: Ms Jenkinson
Employer Member: Mr Keogh
Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.


BACKGROUND:

2. The worker was employed by the Company from August 2001 until February, 2002, when he alleges he was unfairly dismissed. The Company sells sports equipment and employs in excess of 300 employees at 20 outlets throughout the country.

The worker had two years previous employment with the Company in Kilkenny. The worker referred his case to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 20th of November, 2002, in Galway.





WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. The Union submits, without prejudice, that the Company's original excuse for the dismissal, due to lay off was untrue.

2. The decision to dismiss was taken before the employee was told of the allegations now being made or indeed given an opportunity to reply.

3. The worker was never disciplined.

4. The worker had been told by management that the Company had no difficulty with his work.


COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:-

4. 1. The Company held a number of meetings with the worker.

2. The worker was informed that he was not satisfactorily meeting the people characteristics for the job.

3. The worker broke the chain of command, he went over the head of his immediate boss.

RECOMMENDATION:

The Court has considered the submissions of both parties.

The Court has examined the procedures involved in this dismissal and is of the view that the employer failed to follow proper procedures. It is accepted that no warnings were given to the worker in accordance with normal disciplinary procedures and he was not told that his job was in jeopardy before the dismissal took place. This procedural deficiency constitutes a breach of the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures S.I. No: 146 of 2000.

The Court notes that in the period following the dismissal the employer introduced new procedures to comply with normal disciplinary procedures.

Having regard to all the circumstances of this case the Court recommends that the worker be paid €6,000 compensation in full and final settlement of all claims arising from his dismissal.










Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Caroline Jenkinson
17th December, 2002______________________
HMCD/MB.Deputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Helena McDermott, Court Secretary.




 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Share this page

 
logo-sml
Links|About the Reform Programme|Accessibility|Privacy Policy|Disclaimer|Sitemap

Registered Address: Department of Business, Enterprise and Innovation, O'Brien Road, Carlow