Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8745 Case Number: LCR11127 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: CAFE DE PARIS - and - MR. M. CHABAN |
Alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the
parties. There was a major conflict of evidence between them as
regards all the important elements of the case and the Court finds
itself unable to come to a conclusion on the question of whether
the claimant had any involvement in any of the alleged
irregularities. The Court is satisfied, however, that he was most
unfairly treated in the manner of his dismissal and recommends
that the employer should pay to him forthwith, #375 holiday money,
#125 in lieu of notice, #138 in respect of back pay and #33.50 in
respect of tips.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8745 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11127
CC862088 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11127
Parties: CAFE DE PARIS
and
A WORKER
Subject:
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
Background:
2. The Cafe de Paris is owned by P.I.P. Investments Limited and
is situated at the Galleria Shopping Arcade in Dublin. In April,
1986 the worker concerned was interviewed by a director of the
Company and was employed as manager of the restaurant. He
continued to work there in that capacity until 2nd December, 1986.
On that date the director approached the manager saying he wanted
to speak to him. They went to the Shopping Arcade and a
discussion took place in the course of which the director stated
that he was dismissing the manager as he considered him to be
responsible for irregularities on a number of occasions. The
manager denied this. A further discussion took place the
following day. The manager sought to have holiday money, payment
in lieu of notice, back pay and tips paid to him. This was
refused and the manager left. The manager sought to have the
matter investigated by a Rights Commissioner but the Company
refused to attend such an investigation. The manager then
referred the matter of his dismissal and the monies which he
considered to be owed to him to the Labour Court under Section
20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. He agreed to be
bound by the Court's recommendation. A Court hearing took place
on 27th February, 1987. No Company representative attended this
hearing. The Court then issued a sub poena to the Company
director to attend a resumed Court hearing. A resumed hearing
took place on 23rd March, 1987 which both parties attended.
Worker's arguments:
3. (i) The worker denies that he had any involvement or any
knowledge of the alleged incidents. He considers that
he has been unfairly dismissed.
(ii) The worker was in sole charge of the restaurant and
improved the business dramatically.
(iii) The manner in which the worker's employment was
terminated was offensive and humiliating (details
supplied to the Court).
(iv) The worker seeks payment in lieu of notice, holiday
pay, back pay and tips due to him.
(v) The Company contends that the worker owes #1166 in
respect of petrol purchased on the director's account.
The worker understood that he was entitled to purchase
this petrol. This matter was not raised by the Company
over the period of his employment.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) The worker was dismissed because he was either
responsible for the irregularities or because of gross
incompetence as a manager.
(b) The Company denies that the worker's employment was
terminated in an offensive and humiliating manner as
detailed by the worker to the Court.
(c) The Company does not contest that the worker is due
holiday money, money in lieu of notice, back money and
money in respect of tips, to a total of approximately
#670. This was not paid because the worker owes the
Company approximately #1,536 in respect of money given
to him to purchase clothing (#200), a loan of #170 and
petrol bought on the director's account (#1,166).
Details concerning the matter of the petrol purchased
were supplied to the Court.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the
parties. There was a major conflict of evidence between them as
regards all the important elements of the case and the Court finds
itself unable to come to a conclusion on the question of whether
the claimant had any involvement in any of the alleged
irregularities. The Court is satisfied, however, that he was most
unfairly treated in the manner of his dismissal and recommends
that the employer should pay to him forthwith, #375 holiday money,
#125 in lieu of notice, #138 in respect of back pay and #33.50 in
respect of tips.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
__________________________
P.P. Nicholas Fitzgerald
Deputy Chairman
22nd April, 1987
A.K./J.C.