Labour Court Database
File Number: CD87860
Case Number: LCR11764
Section / Act: S20(1)
Parties: XTRA-VISION - and - A WORKER;F.L.A.C.
Claim that a worker's dismissal was unfair.
5. The Court notes that despite three invitations the Company did
not see fit to attend a hearing in the Court. The Court notes the
written submission from the Company (undated) in response to the
written submission from the claimant.
Having considered the submission the Court recommends that the
Company pay the claimant the balance of wages due in respect of
the three months for which she was originally recruited.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87860 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11764
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
(REPRESENTED BY F.L.A.C.)
1. Claim that a worker's dismissal was unfair.
2. The Company rents videos to the public and has over 20
branches in Dublin. This claim concerns a worker who was employed
by the Company from 20th September, 1987 to 5th October, 1987 as a
shop assistant in its Swords branch. She was to be paid #100 per
week. The worker received 3 days training and was initially to be
employed for a 3 months probation period after which, subject to
her performance, a permanent position would be offered. The
worker was dismissed on 5th October, 1987 and was given no notice
or pay in lieu and no reference. She claimed the dismissal was
unfair and sought to refer the matter to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation. However, this was not acceptable to the Company.
On 7th November, 1987 the worker referred the claim to the Labour
Court for investigation under Section 20(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1967. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's
recommendation. The Court heard the appeal on 15th March, 1988.
Two previous hearings were postponed due to the non-attendance of
the Company. The Company did not attend the Court hearing.
3. 1. Initially the reason given to the worker for her dismissal
was that the branch was overstaffed. However, another worker
had started work in the branch that morning and is still
employed there doing the same job which the worker did.
2. Apart from saying she was unsuitable no other reasons were
given for the dismissal.
3. The worker was given no notice or pay in lieu and no
reference. She was given no opportunity to make any
representations about her dismissal.
3. 4. The worker should be paid for the remainder of the three
month period on the basis of which she accepted the job. She
should also be paid for the 3 day training period. The fact
that she would not be paid for the 3 days training had not
been mentioned at the interview.
5. The worker totally denies the Company's argument that she
was not able to cope with the volume of business. She had no
difficulty in this regard and had received no complaints from
6. It was the custom in the shop to stack the tapes under the
counter and to put them away when there were a number there.
This is the practice which the worker followed. She did not
stack the tapes on top of the counter at any stage.
7. The worker rejects the Company's argument that she was not
able to get along with other members of staff. The only
difference she had was with the thirteen year old sister of
the manager's girl friend. This girl used to be in the shop
sometimes to help but mostly played with the Company's
computer and would stack tapes on the counter. She was also
slow when dealing with customers.
4. 1. When the worker attended for interview she was informed
that after her successful completion of 3 days training that
she would be incorporated into the payroll. The Company also
made it clear that she would be employed on a three month
trial period after which subject to her performance a
permanent position would be offered.
2. The worker was dismissed because she was not able to cope
with the volume of people. This resulted in long delays and
loss of custom. Several complaints were received by the
Company about the worker's attitude lack of co-operation and
3. On two separate occasions the worker was told by
management staff not to stack the tapes on the counter for
4. The worker was not able to get along with other members of
5. The worker was not suitable for the job for which she was
employed and was not capable or competent to carry out the
work required of her.