|
FULL RECOMMENDATION
PARTIES : FLANNERYS BAR LTD, FLANNERYS BAR GLASHEEN LTD. DIVISION :
SUBJECT: 1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No(s). ADJ-00021483 CA-00027723-005/007. CA-00027723-007 Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 requires me to investigate the Dispute and make a recommendation. I have investigated the Dispute and have not found merit in the Dispute" On 25 November 2019, the Employee appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 2 November 2021.
Worker’s case The Worker submitted written statements outlining his case which he read into the record. It is the Worker’s submission that he has attention deficit disorder and is asthmatic. The Worker does not dispute that on his employee starter form he only mentioned his asthma. It is his submission that he was required to work in a kitchen that was smoky because of coal and wood fires in the bar below and that the kitchen was not well ventilated. It was his submission that this impacted on his asthma It is the Workers case that on the 14th March 2019 he was due to work from 9.00am to 3.00pm. It was very busy that day and the floor manager became irritated and started shouting at him that there were delays with the food getting out to the customers. Arising from this the Chef rang the Owner as they had to ‘comp’ some breakfasts. The Chef arrived in the kitchen and told the Worker that the owner wanted him gone and that he was to leave now. This happened shortly after 11.30am. It was the Workers understanding that this meant he had been fired. On 21st March 2019 he called the owner directly and requested his P45, a reference and his holiday pay. They spoke again on the 27th March, and he understood that the owner wanted him to leave. He received a reference dated 14th March 2019. He did not report for work after the 14th March 2019 as he was not due in on the days immediately after the 14th March 2019. Employer’s position It is the Employers position that they were not aware of the issue he raised in respect of the kitchen and if this was an issue it affected all kitchen staff. In respect of the 14th March 2019, it is their submission that the Worker had a melt down in the kitchen that morning and that he was sent home to calm down. A number of customers on the morning in question had left the business due to the delay in getting their orders. The Employer submitted that when the owner received a phone call from the front of house manager advising that the place was in chaos, he contacted the Chef and told him to settle things down. No instruction was given to fire anyone. The Employer submitted that they were happy with how the Worker performed his duties. The Employer submitted that the Worker later indicated that he may have forgotten to take his medication on the morning in question. The Worker had on previous occasions threatened to leave and had been coaxed back to work. On this occasion they did not try to coax him back as the Worker informed them that he had a new job. He requested a reference and was provided with a good reference. It is their submission that the Worker was not fired but that he left the employment of his own accord. Discussion The Court having carefully considered the submissions of the parties finds that the Worker was not dismissed. Even if the Worker believed on the day that he was dismissed, he could have raised this with the Owner when he spoke to him, instead he sought his P45, a reference and his holiday pay. The Employer was entitled to believe at that point that the Worker was leaving their employment of his own volition. The Court decides that there was no dismissal the appeal fails. The decision of the Adjudication Officer is upheld.
NOTE |
