INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
JAEBRADE SECURITY SERVICES
- AND -
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
2. The dispute concerns a worker who commenced employment as a security officer on the 22nd November 1995. He was dismissed on the 31st January 1996. The worker claimed that his dismissal was unfair and sought to refer the dispute to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. The company objected to such an investigation. On the 18th April 1996 the worker referred the dispute to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the 5th June 1996. The Company declined an invitation to attend the hearing.
3. 1. The employee concerned had worked five consecutive nights including a weekend and had finished work on a Monday morning at 8.00 a.m. At 4 p.m. he received notification from the Company to report for work at 6.30 p.m. to cover extra hours. The worker informed Management that because of the late notification, he would report at 9.00 p.m. Management insisted, in an abusive tone, that if the worker did not report at 6.30 p.m. he need not 'bother coming in' that he 'was finished' and abruptly terminated the conversation.
2. The Company's dismissal of the worker was arbitrary, unfair and unjust. He had a good employment record and never received warnings as to his conduct, either written or verbal. The employee was prepared to work the extra hours even at short notice. The Company's action in dismissing him was totally unwarranted and unjustifiable. The worker seeks appropriate redress.
The Company did not attend the hearing and therefore the only evidence before the Court was that of the claimant.
It is the view of the Court, based on the evidence submitted that the claimant was unfairly dismissed.
The Court recommends that the Company pay the claimant the sum of £500 in compensation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
14th June, 1996______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.