INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
- AND -
Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Mr Keogh
Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Decision IR2997/00/JH.
2. The worker commenced employment with Irish Pride as a night checker on the 30th April, 2000. His employment was terminated on the 3rd August, 2000. He claimed that he had been unfairly dismissed and referred the matter to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 15th of February, 2001 the Rights Commissioner recommended as follows:-
On the basis of the submissions made and for the reasons set out in the conclusion I find that (the worker) was dismissed and that the dismissal was unfair. He did contribute to the company view of him but that does not render the dismissal fair. (The worker) is to receive £1000 (1269.74 Euro) compensation in respect of his dismissal inclusive of the £400 (507.90 Euro) held by him in respect of a cash shop on the run.
(The worker was named in the above recommendation).
The worker appealed the Rights Commissioners recommendation to the Labour Court on the 23rd February, 2001 under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 26th July, 2001.
3. 1. There is no evidence to support the Company's allegation that the worker was involved in a hit and run accident. The worker was not in the Mobhi Road area on the day in question.
2. The worker received no written or verbal warnings and no holiday pay was received.
4. 1. During his short period of employment which the Company regarded as a probationary period there was a catalogue of problems with the employee. The worker was unsuitable and unreliable.
2. In the circumstances, the Company believes it acted in a fair and reasonable manner.
The claimant told the Court that his primary motivation in bringing this appeal was to dispel any suggestion that he had been involved in a hit-and run incident. The employer told the Court that while the possibility that one of its vehicles had been involved in such an incident, had been raised, the claimant was not suspected and this formed no part of their consideration in terminating his employment.
On the basis of the evidence before it, the Court has no hesitation in finding, as a matter of fact, that the claimant was not involved in any hit-and run incident involving the Company's delivery van or otherwise. Whilst noting the Company's assertion that no such allegation was made, the Court is of the view that for the avoidance of any doubt the company should furnish the claimant with a written statement making it clear that he is not suspected of involvement in the incident.
With regard to the substantive issue, the Court concurs with the conclusions of the Rights Commissioner in finding that the claimant's dismissal was unfair on procedural grounds. The Court is satisfied that in addition to the loss suffered by reason of the dismissal the claimant was not given notice or pay in lieu and was not paid holiday pay due to him (this was not brought to the attention of the Rights Commissioner).
In all circumstances the Court determines that the compensation recommended by the Rights Commissioner be increased to £1,500 (1904.61 Euro) inclusive of the £400 (507.90 Euro) held by him, in full and final settlement of all outstanding claims, including those in relation to notice and holidays.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
8th August, 2001______________________
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Marian O'Connell, Court Secretary.