INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
OASIS (ELDERMADE LIMITED)
- AND -
Chairman: Mr Flood
Employer Member: Mr McHenry
Worker Member: Mr O'Neill
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
2. The worker was employed by the Company in December 1997. He had previously worked in another newsagents in Hartstown Shopping Centre for 4 years. The worker claims that one of the owners of the Company rang his employer in Hartstown and told him that he was looking for someone to manage a new shop (Oasis) in Westland Row. The worker was told that it was a permanent position with very good prospects.
The worker set up the shop and contacted all the necessary suppliers e.g. tobacco, magazines, newsagents, confectionery etc. He got a new canopy worth £1,400. On the 28th of January, 1998, 2 of the newsagents' owners came into the shop and told the worker that he was dismissed. He was given no reason for his dismissal.
The worker referred his case to the Labour Court on the 10th of March, 1998, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 9th of April, 1998. The Company did not attend the hearing. In a letter to the Court, the Company claimed that the worker was unsuitable for the job and that he could not accept the authority of one of the Company directors.
3. 1. The person who approached the worker's previous employer was not one of the owners of Oasis Newsagents as he claimed but was, in fact, a minority share-holder. The worker had been promised that his job in Oasis was permanent and, as a result, gave up a job he had held for 4 years.
2. The worker had no problems in Oasis. The owners told him that he had done a good job and that they had no complaints. The worker believes that he was brought in because of his experience to set up the newsagents and was then replaced with someone younger once the business had become established. He has found it difficult to get work since his dismissal.
The Employer did not attend the Court hearing but did provide a written statement. Based on the evidence before it, the Court is satisfied that the claimant was requested by this Company to leave his job of 4 years to take on the new shop and that no evidence was presented to indicate that he had been less than satisfactory.
It would appear from the evidence presented that the claimant's contacts were used to good effect by the new Company and that he was then dismissed. No explanation was given and he was told that he had done a good job as he was being dismissed.
The Court finds that the Employer's treatment of the claimant was totally unreasonable and the dismissal unfair.
The Court recommends that the Employer pays the claimant a lump sum of £1,500 as compensation and supply a reference on request.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
27th April, 1998______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.