Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91538 Case Number: AD9196 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: PREMIER BAR - and - A WORKER |
Appeal by the worker against Rights Commissioners Recommendation C.W. 309/91 concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
It seems clear to the Court on the basis of the information
provided by the Employer himself that at no stage prior to his
dismissal was the worker warned or given any indication that his
behaviour was not of the standard expected. The Court takes the
view that in these circumstances the worker was indeed unfairly
dismissed and the Court therefore upholds the appeal against the
Rights Commissioner's Recommendation in this respect.
In the light of the terms under which the appellant was paid off
the Court does not consider that any further compensation is
warranted.
The Court so decides
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91538 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD9691
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: PREMIER BAR
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the worker against Rights Commissioners
Recommendation C.W. 309/91 concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed as a barman for approximately nine
months. He was dismissed at the end of June, 1991. He claimed
that his dismissal was unfair and referred the issue to a Rights
Commissioner for investigation. The Rights Commissioner
investigated the dispute on the 5th September, 1991. The worker
did not attend the hearing as he claimed that he had not received
notification. On the 16th September, 1991 the Rights Commissioner
issued his recommendation as follows.
"I recommend that the worker accepts that he has no dispute
with the Premier Bar".
On the 5th October, 1991 the worker appealed the Recommendation to
the Labour Court Under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. The Court investigated the dispute on the 5th
November, 1991.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. On the date of his dismissal the worker concerned was
working in the bar with another barman. At approximately
10.00 p.m. the Employer came into the premises and went
upstairs to his private quarters. At closing time the other
barman finished his work and left. The worker concerned was
cleaning up the bar area when the Employer came downstairs,
called him over and handed him a cheque. On enquiring what
the cheque was for the worker was told he was being dismissed.
He was amazed, at the Employer's action. He had been employed
for nine months and never received a warning nor was he
reprimanded about any aspect of his work. He had a good
working relationship with the Employer, the other barman and
customers. The worker asked the Employer for an explanation
of his dismissal and was told that he did not clean the bar
area or toilets properly and did not fit in. The worker then
left the premises.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS;
4. 1. The Employer had never previously dismissed a worker and
felt very awkward and apprehensive about dismissing the worker
concerned. However he had formed the opinion over a number of
months that the employee's work in general was of a poor
quality and very often had to be re-done by either the
Employer or the other barman. His relationship with customers
was less than satisfactory and in a small premises such as the
Premier Bar this was a big disadvantage.
2. The Employer gave the worker concerned a cheque in the
amount of £400 in respect of two weeks wages. This was more
than his statutory entitlement. He gave him a good reference.
He also some months previously gave the worker a larger sum of
money in the form of a loan to buy a car (details supplied to
the Court). He feels that he has treated the worker very
fairly in financial terms. He agrees that he was remiss in
not gaving him formal warnings.
DECISION;
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
It seems clear to the Court on the basis of the information
provided by the Employer himself that at no stage prior to his
dismissal was the worker warned or given any indication that his
behaviour was not of the standard expected. The Court takes the
view that in these circumstances the worker was indeed unfairly
dismissed and the Court therefore upholds the appeal against the
Rights Commissioner's Recommendation in this respect.
In the light of the terms under which the appellant was paid off
the Court does not consider that any further compensation is
warranted.
The Court so decides
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
____________________
13th November, 1991. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.