Labour Court Database
File Number: CD87533
Case Number: LCR11406
Section / Act: S20(1)
Parties: XTRA-VISION LTD - and - MR. PHILIP DARGAN
Dispute concerning the alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
5. The Court, on the basis of the additional information provided
by the Company is satisfied that the claimant has received all
payments due to him. The Court further notes that a revised
reference has been issued and a duplicate P.60.
In view of the above the Court considers it would not be justified
in recommending any compensation.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87533 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11406
SECTION 20(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11406
PARTIES: XTRA-VISION LIMITED
1. Dispute concerning the alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
2. The worker concerned was employed part-time in a video
library for approximately a year up to March, 1987. There was
also another worker who was employed full time. The library
changed hands and the full time worker left as the new conditions
of employment did not suit her. The worker concerned accepted
full-time employment at the end of the first week of the
changeover. He was employed on a long week - short week basis at
#100 per week. His hours of work were 11.30 a.m. to 9 .00 p.m., 5
days a week (long week) and 4.00 p.m. to 9.00 p.m., 6 days a week
(short week). Because of the on-going reorganisation due to the
changeover, and the training of a replacement for the worker who
had left, the worker concerned did not work a short week but was
on overtime up to the time of his dismissal on 10th May, 1987. On
the 16th May, 1987 the worker sought an investigation by a Rights
Commissioner. The Company declined an invitation to attend an
investigation and the matter was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation under Section 20(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Court hearing was held on 27th
July, 1987. The worker agreed to be bound by the decision of the
3. (a) The worker was dismissed without any reason being
given, and did not receive reference or monies due.
When the employer was pressed for a reason subsequently
by telephone, he replied that the television set in the
shop (which is used for advertising) was switched off
when he entered the premises. It was explained that
the television was switched off to allow the workers to
concentrate on the business in hand as the shop was
busy at the time. The worker's colleague was not even
reprimanded for this and she is still working for the
Company. Other incidents were cited by the Company,
but when looked at in their proper context they did not
warrant dismissal (details supplied to the Court).
(b) The Company also stated that the worker was not
suitable for the job, (lack of experience, unable to
cope when shop was busy, etc.). However, for the first
four weeks before the other worker was taken on, he was
found to be very suitable. He literally stepped into
the breach at short notice, giving up school because he
thought he was so lucky to find a full time job, and
worked to the best of his ability to ensure that the
changeover went as smoothly as possible for the new
(c) On the week before the Court hearing the Company
contacted the worker and offered him a cheque for
#110.10, a reference and copies of his P45 and P60.
The worker refused to take these as the money offered
falls short of what he was due and the reference was
terse and inadequate.
4. (i) The worker concerned was employed on a 3 month trial
period. He was dismissed because he was not suitable
for the position and he was not capable of performing
the job satisfactorily (details supplied to the
Court). When this Company took over the shop the
business increased dramatically. The worker was not
able to keep up with the increased demand. This
became apparent after four weeks and another worker
(ii) A reference, a P45 and P60 along with cash in the sum
of #110.10 in respect of all monies due were sent in
the post to the worker on 26th May, 1987. It appears
that they may never have arrived. On the 21st July,
1987 a Company representative called to the worker's
house to furnish further copies of these documents.
The worker refused to accept them and they were
subsequently sent by registered post.