INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
TWIBILL ENGINEERING LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY DONAL O'HAGAN SOLICITOR)
- AND -
Chairman: Ms Jenkinson
Employer Member: Mr Carberry
Worker Member: Mr O'Neill
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioners Recommendation IR5402/01/JH.
2. The worker commenced employment on the 13th/14th of May, 2001, and was dismissed on the 9th of June, 2001. The worker asked permission on the 8th of June for a few hours off to attend a funeral the following day. When he arrived in work on the 9th he was given one week's wages (for the week worked) and one week's pay in lieu of notice. He was told that the reason for the notice was that the employer could no longer afford to pay him. The Company's case is that the worker was not suitable for the job. The worker referred his case to the a Rights Commissioner and her recommendation is as follows:
"On the basis of the information available to me at the hearing, I find that the worker was unfairly dismissed by Twibill Engineering Limited. While the duration of the employment was very short, I note that the failure to apply a written contract and take into account that the fact the worker left alternative employment to work for this Company and that he remains unemployed. Taking these factors into account I recommend that Twibill Engineering Limited pay the worker the sum of £1,500 €(1,905) nett compensation for the loss of his employment."
The Company appealed the case to the Labour Court on the 19th of December, 2001, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 1st of March, 2002, in Dundalk.
3. 1. The worker was offered the job by the Company, and he left another job to take up the position.
2. The worker was only late on one occasion and that was the first day of his employment. He had a good relationship with the other employees. He took instructions from a co-worker, not the employer himself as is claimed.
3. The worker was told that there was plenty of work, but was then told that the reason for his dismissal was lack of money. He was replaced soon after he left. He received no contract of employment.
4. 1. The worker arrived on his first day in the job suffering from the effects of alcohol. It soon became apparent that he was not suitable for the job. He failed to take instructions and was inattentive to his work.
2. The employer has been in business for 9 years and has had no problems with employees before. He had no option but to let the worker go, and believes that it is unfair that he has to pay money to someone who could not do his job properly.
Having considered the submissions of both sides, the Court can see no reason to change the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner and, therefore, rejects the Company's appeal.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
21st March , 2002______________________
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.