Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87761 Case Number: LCR11594 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: SHAMROCK FOODS LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Claim concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is satisfied that the claimant was not unfairly
dismissed in January, 1981. The Court is not satisfied however,
that he actually received the #110 severance money offered to him
in the Company's letter of the 26th February, 1981. Accordingly
the Court recommends that the Company pay him #200 and that he
should accept this sum in final settlement of his claim.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87761 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11594
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: SHAMROCK FOODS LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Claim concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was employed as a "full-time temporary"
truck driver from the 10th November, 1979 until the 29th January,
1981. He was offered #110 severance pay but refused it on the
advice of his union (the Company is unable to confirm whether or
not he accepted the money). He claims that he left on the
understanding that if any further work became available, he would
be offered it. The Company did offer him work in March, 1981, but
as his driving licence was suspended for six months, he had to
forego the offer. When he got back his licence he contacted the
Company, enquiring about the possibility of any further work but
was told by the new Transport Manager that no commitments given to
him in the past could now be honoured and that there wasn't, nor
wouldn't be, any work available. Following lengthy efforts to
seek further employment with the Company, he referred a claim for
unfair dismissal to a Rights Commissioner. Following the
Company's refusal to attend such a hearing, he referred his claim
to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969, agreeing to be bound by the Court's
recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the 23rd November,
1987. At this hearing disagreement arose between the parties
concerning when last the claimant worked for the Company. He
claims it was in January, 1981, whereas Management argue he last
worked in September of that year.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. During the claimant's time with the Company, an
industrial dispute arose involving the sales staff
(represented by the Marine Port and General Workers' Union)
which resulted in pickets being placed on the firm's
premises. The claimant was a member of another union and was
advised to pass the pickets. He and another driver continued
working throughout the strike and this led to a lot of bad
feeling. He claims that he suffered a great deal of hardship
and abuse as a result of the strike and that the Company's
subsequent treatment of him was uncaring.
2. He was given specific verbal commitments that when he got
his driving licence back, he would be offered further work.
None of these commitments were honoured.
3. He did not take the #110 offered as severance pay in
February, 1981, as his union advised that to do so would
jeopardise his chances of getting future work with the
Company.
4. The claimant is adamant that he last worked for the
Company in January, 1981, and not September as the Company is
arguing.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claimant was employed by the Company with a view to
satisfying a short term requirement. In January, 1981, as is
traditional, the business went slack following the Christmas
period. The Company held on to him for a few weeks in
anticipation of an upturn in business and when this did not
occur his temporary contract was terminated on the 29th
January, 1981.
2. The Company stated that it would give him a call when
work was available and no further commitment was given. He
was so employed on a number of occasions for small periods
and he last worked for the Company in September, 1981.
Following September, he kept in contact with the Company
inquiring about the possibility of further employment. No
such opportunity arose for which he could have been
considered.
3. The Court should note that the Company discovered that
his driving licence had been 'withdrawn' during the course of
1981, thereby nullifying any prospect of employment which
might have arisen with the Company.
4. The Company no longer employs drivers. In October, 1985,
its entire staff of 15 drivers were made redundant. Five
drivers took up contracts for service as owner drivers.
5. In defence of its position the Company would further
argue that the alleged unfair dismissal, which took place in
January, 1981, must fail as he was offered and accepted
further employment after January 1981. This occurred on a
number of occasions and his employment was terminated under
the same conditions as before.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court is satisfied that the claimant was not unfairly
dismissed in January, 1981. The Court is not satisfied however,
that he actually received the #110 severance money offered to him
in the Company's letter of the 26th February, 1981. Accordingly
the Court recommends that the Company pay him #200 and that he
should accept this sum in final settlement of his claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
16th December, 1987 Nicholas Fitzgerald
D.H./P.W. Deputy Chairman