INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
ABBERLEY COURT HOTEL
(REPRESENTED BY O'ROURKE, REID & COMPANY (SOLICITORS)
- AND -
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
2. The worker was employed as a kitchen porter in the first week of October, 1995. The Hotel was newly opened. The worker claims that he was the only kitchen porter looking after 3 kitchens until the head chef hired more porters. He claims that he was owed 40 - 50 hours overtime and was eventually paid 20 hours. (The full amount of overtime was paid to the worker following a Rights Commissioner's hearing).
At a meeting before Christmas, the worker inquired about the remainder of the overtime owed to him. He was told that he could take time off in lieu of the hours worked. The worker stated that he would prefer the money.
In January, the worker received a verbal warning, followed by a written warning. The warnings were for being late for work and the untidiness of the kitchen.
On 1st February, 1996, the head chef informed the worker that he was unhappy with his work. The worker claims that the head chef told him to hand in his notice the following week or he would be dismissed. The worker asked again about the overtime owed to him.
The worker decided to hand in his notice on 2nd February. The following day he went to see the cost controller about his overtime. He claims that he met the head chef who told him to clean out his locker, go home and not return until 8th February to collect his wages.
The worker referred the dispute to the Labour Court on 7th May, 1996 in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 24th June, 1996.
3. 1. The worker was extremely busy from the time he joined the Hotel. He was the only porter looking after 3 kitchens until he complained to the head chef. He had to ask a number of times before he was paid the overtime due to him.
2. The worker was very busy during Christmas and early January, working 60 - 70 hour per week. As a result, he was late twice. The worker was forced to resign because he insisted on being paid for his overtime.
4. 1. The worker was reprimanded on a number of occasions before disciplinary action was taken. He was issued with a verbal warning on 7th January, 1996, for poor timekeeping, uncleanliness of his immediate work area and partaking of meals in the staff canteen on his days off. He was 35 minutes late on 21st January, 1996, and was issued with a written warning the following day. He was told that if his work performance did not improve he would be dismissed.
2. On 29th January, 1996 the worker again failed to meet his job requirements. On 1st February, he was given the option of resigning before he was dismissed. The worker did so on 2nd February, giving one week's notice.
The Court, having considered all of the issues raised by the parties in their oral and written submissions, does not find that the claimant was treated unfairly by the Company.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
29th July, 1996______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.