INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
WILDE SEA FOODS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES (IRELAND) LIMITED)
- AND -
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
2. The worker commenced employment as a deliveryman on the 23th July, 1995. He was dismissed on the 15 November 1995. The worker claimed that he was unfairly dismissed. Management rejected the claim. The worker 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 10th June 1996.
3. 1. The employee concerned worked long hours, completed his deliveries to the best of his ability and had a good relationship with most clients. While he was aware of a number of complaints about him he was given no opportunities by the Company to discuss these complaints with Management. The worker had difficulties with the manager of one store. He outlined these to Management and asked to be changed to another route. The worker delivered to other stores without problems.
2. Following a particularly long week of driving the worker requested a Friday afternoon and Saturday off. Management seemed annoyed and on enquiring later about his duties for the following week the worker was told he was off on Monday and Tuesday. He was subsequently told he was being placed on "lay off".
3. The manner of the worker's dismissal was most unjust and unfair . He was handed his last pay cheque and P45 by the Company's accountant without any notice. He feels aggrieved at this treatment and seeks appropriate compensation.
1. The worker concerned was employed on a probationary period of six months during which time Management assessed his suitability for the position of deliveryman. A crucial aspect of this job is the liaison relationship built up between the driver and client. As a representative of the Company the worker was expected to deal with clients in a manner acceptable to them and to ensure he projected a good image of the Company.
2. It was brought to the Company's attention on a number of occasions by a major client that the worker's attitude was not acceptable to them (Details to Court) and they stated they would not be happy for the claimant to deliver to them.
3. The Company discussed the matter with the complainants. Management decided that the worker was not suitable for the position of delivery man in the Company. Management was left with no option but to terminate his employment. The worker was paid all his statutory entitlements. He was treated in a fair and reasonable manner.
The employee was not given any written terms or conditions of employment.
While there was acceptance by the claimant that there were complaints about him, he argued that those complaints, apart from one, all came from the same client.
Taking into account all of the information before it the Court finds that the manner of dismissal was unfair.
The Court recommends that the Company pay the claimant the sum of £200 by way of compensation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
26th June, 1996______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.