INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
STRADDLE SERVICE STATION
- AND -
(REPRESENTED BY MANDATE)
Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Mr Grier
Worker Member: Mr Nash
2. The worker commenced employment with the Company on the 18th August, 2003. His role was as general assistant, required to stock shelves, check and unpack orders and attend to the petrol pumps. The Union's case is that on the 11th of May, 2004, the worker was informed that a customer had made a complaint that the worker had closed the business at 11.00 p.m. sharp (or slightly earlier). Two days later the worker was informed that his services were no longer required. The reasons given were that he did not want to work weekends, the job did not suit him and that he was "not up for the job". The Union wrote to the employer twice requesting meetings but none took place.
The Union referred the case to the Labour Court on the 22nd of September, 2004, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 14th of October, 2005, in Donegal, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
3. 1. The worker was unfairly dismissed and he was denied the right to a fair investigation which would have exonerated him from any wrong doing.
2. The worker has suffered as a result of the dismissal. Although he found other work shortly after the dismissal he has no guarantee of security in the job.
4. 1. The worker was not dismissed. He left the premises of his own accord on the 13th of May, 2004.
2. The incident of the 11th of May, 2004, where a customer complained about him was just one of many complaints the employer received.
Having considered all of the evidence available to it, the Court is satisfied that the Claimant was dismissed in the circumstances which he alleged.
The Court is further satisfied that the employer failed to follow fair procedure in investigating the complaint against the claimant. In particular, the Court is satisfied that the manner of the claimant's dismissal contravened the Code of Practice on Disciplinary Procedures (S.I. 146 of 2000).
Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the Court recommends that the employer pay the claimant compensation in the amount of €5,000 in settlement of his claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
21st October, 2005______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.