Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8736 Case Number: LCR11099 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: MCMANUS SHOES LTD - and - MR. J. FOLEY |
Claim by the worker that he was unfairly dismissed.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, does not consider that the claimant was unfairly
dismissed and accordingly does not recommend concession of the
claim.
Nicholas Fitzgerald
30th March, 1987 -------------------
A.K./U.S. Deputy Chairman
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8736 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11099
Section 20(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11099
Parties: MCMANUS SHOES
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
A WORKER
Subject:
1. Claim by the worker that he was unfairly dismissed.
Background:
2. The worker commenced employment with the Company on 29th
September, 1986. He worked mainly in the stores area and at times
provided cover in the sales area. The Company contends that he
was employed on a casual basis while the worker considers himself
to have been employed in a permanent capacity. On 12th December,
1986 he was informed that his contract of employment was
terminated from that date. Subsequently, the worker sought
payment of a weeks' pay in lieu of notice. The Company did not
make any such payment. The worker referred a case of alleged
unfair dismissal to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Court hearing took place on
27th February, 1987. Prior to the hearing the worker agreed to be
bound by the Court's recommendation.
Worker's arguments:
3. (i) The worker considered that he was employed in a
permanent capacity. He left school to take up this
employment. He was paid on a monthly basis.
(ii) The worker considers that he was dismissed without
justification and is seeking reinstatement and
compensation for the loss sustained.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) At the time he was employed, the worker was made aware
that his employment was not on a permanent basis and
that he would be paid the rate of pay appropriate to
the stores area.
(b) The Company did not experience the increase in business
which it had hoped it would and found that it was not
necessary to retain this worker in employment, from
12th December, 1986.
(c) If the worker believed that he had a permanent position
with the Company, he should have raised this at the
time of his employment.
(d) Initially, only the question of payment in lieu of
notice was raised which seems to indicate that the
worker realised that he was employed on a temporary
basis.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, does not consider that the claimant was unfairly
dismissed and accordingly does not recommend concession of the
claim.
Nicholas Fitzgerald
30th March, 1987 -------------------
A.K./U.S. Deputy Chairman