INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
MORRIN MORRIN & MALONE (THE BARGE)
- AND -
(REPRESENTED BY FLEMING O'FLAHERTY SOLICITORS)
Chairman: Mr McGee
Employer Member: Mr Grier
Worker Member: Mr. Somers
1. Alleged unfair dismissal
2. The worker was employed as a bar-man by the Company from September 2002 to the 22nd of June, 2003, when a meeting took place between the Manager, two other individuals and the worker in relation to issues arising from an independent investigation carried out on the premises by risk management consultants over a period of time. The worker was questioned about a number of alleged incidents observed by the consultants in relation to his work and contends that he was told how incompetent he was in his job and told his employment was being terminated. The Company rejects the claim and does not agree that the worker was dismissed, but resigned.
- On the 25th November, 2003, the worker referred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 12th August, 2004.
The worker agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
3. 1. No oral or written warnings were given about these alleged complaints.
2. The worker was not given adequate time to respond to allegations made against him, following a period of covert surveillance.
3. The worker was unfairly dismissed.
4. 1. The meeting, referred to in the main, was, very relaxed and constructive.
2.It was put to the worker that, as a person in charge, he would be required to set the standards that others followed. He accepted this.
3. The worker said he could not work on the premises anymore and was packing up. The worker left of his own free will on the day.
Having considered the submissions and supporting evidence put forward by the parties, the Court is satisfied that the claimant was not given a fair and reasonable opportunity to state his case at the meeting with the then owner and the risk management consultants to which he was abruptly called on the 22nd June, 2003. The Court also notes that he was given no facility to have representation.
The Court is of the view that the claimant was, in fact, dismissed at the meeting and that dismissal was an excessively harsh punishment for any misdemeanours he may have committed.
Accordingly the Court recommends that the claimant be paid the sum of €3,500 in compensation for being dismissed unfairly from his employment.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
6th September, 2004______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Joanne O'Connor, Court Secretary.