INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
- AND -
Chairman: Mr Flood
Employer Member: Mr Keogh
Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. CW335/96.
2. The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the worker that he was unfairly dismissed by the Company. He was employed as a general operative from November, 1995 to July, 1996 when his employment was terminated. He claims that he received no warnings or reprimands regarding his work or his suitability for employment.
The Company claim that the worker's employment was terminated because of his bad workmanship, bad time keeping and his repeated absence from work in spite of repeated warnings.
The worker rejects the claim that he received verbal warnings or otherwise and claims that he had been unfairly treated by the Company. Any absences from work were covered by a doctors note.
The worker referred the dispute to a Rights Commissioner. The Rights Commissioner investigated the dispute on the 23rd November, 1996 and in his recommendation CW335/96 recommended that:-
"I recommend that the worker accepts that the dismissal was not unfair."
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation).
The worker appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 2nd January, 1997. The Court heard the appeal on the 6th February, 1997 under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
3. 1. The worker rejects the claim that he received warnings and reprimands concerning the quality of his work and his bad time-keeping.
2. He was employed as a general operative but was expected to carry out work proper to a qualified carpenter.
3. The worker has suffered financial loss as a result of his unfair dismissal.
4. 1. The worker was given many opportunities to improve his time-keeping and his quality of work. As there was no improvement he was dismissed.
2. He was sent home on two separate occasions having arrived to work in an unfit state.
3. The Company was never happy with the worker's performance. Following repeated warnings and with no response the Company had no option but to terminate his employment.
The Court having considered the evidence presented finds that the manner of dismissal was unfair.
The Court therefore upholds the appeal against the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation and recommends that the employer pay the appellant the sum of 2 weeks' wages as compensation inclusive of notice.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
12th February, 1997______________________
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.