INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
MR. DENIS STAUNTON
- AND -
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
2. The worker was employed as manager of a shop from 11th September, 1995, to 5th February, 1996. During this time a deficit arose on the sale of Lottery scratch cards which amounted to £1,566. The worker had no explanation for what happened and the cards were never recovered. On 4th February the worker counted the money at the end of the day and found it to be approximately £50 short. On the following day he claims that the owner told him that he was responsible for the £50 short-fall and dismissed him.
The worker referred the dispute to the Labour Court on 4th July, 1996, in accordance with Section 20(1), Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 10th September, 1996.
3. 1. The worker had been employed in a number of shops in the previous 10 years and had no problems with management. On 5th February the worker found 2 "over-registers" totalling £18 and cash £30 over. This was almost equal to the £50 missing the previous day.
2. The worker did not receive his P.45, P.60 or money owed to him for over a month after he was dismissed. He applied for a job in Quinnsworth but was unsuccessful. He feels that this was as a result of his dismissal from the shop. The worker has no knowledge of what happened to the scratch cards but was not responsible for their disappearance.
4. 1. The worker was employed to look after the general day to day running of the shop. He was dismissed because he was not capable of doing the job properly. There were a number of incidents involved e.g. Lottery scratch cards to the value of £1,566 went missing for which the worker could give no explanation. The employer looked after the cards himself after Christmas, 1995 and the problem stopped. Daily cash receipts seldom balanced. Invoices were not properly checked. On 4th February, 1996, the cash for the day was short by £50. The employer had no alternative but to dismiss the worker. He was not replaced as there was not sufficient work for another person in the shop.
It is accepted that the claimant was let go because the level of business being done in this shop could not support the level of employment.
It is further accepted by the employer that he would provide the claimant with a reference, to clarify that this was the position.
The Court recommends that the employer provide a suitable reference for the claimant as discussed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
19th September, 1996______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.