Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86961 Case Number: AD8715 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: BOYLANS LTD - and - IDATU |
Appeal against a Rights Commissioners Recommendation Number CM/16887 concerning the alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is of the opinion that the Rights Commissioners
Recommendation should stand and so decides.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86961 THE LABOUR COURT AD15/87
SECTION 13(9) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
APPEAL DECISION NO. 15 OF 1987
Parties: BOYLANS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION
Subject:
1. Appeal against a Rights Commissioners Recommendation Number
CM/16887 concerning the alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
Background:
2. The worker concerned was employed as a sales assistant at the
Company's branch in Dun Laoghaire from December, 1978 until 25th
January, 1986. On that date an incident occurred between the
worker and the Manager which resulted in the termination of the
worker's employment. According to the Company the worker was
asked to do "kangaroo stock" by the Manager, but refused to carry
out this instruction despite two requests to do so. She was then
handed a letter by the Manager which stated inter alia that she
would carry out all reasonable instructions. The worker was
requested to sign this. She refused, tore the letter up and
collected her belongings and left the shop. The worker contends
that she was carrying out the instruction when she was approached
by the Manager and asked to sign the letter. She informed him
that she needed time to study the letter before signing it. Words
were exchanged (during which the worker tore up the letter)
culminating in the Manager telling the worker she was fired and
ordering her out of the shop. The Union wrote to the Company on
18th April, 1986 concerning the matter. A meeting was held on the
22nd May, 1986. The Union contend that the worker was dismissed
unfairly while the Company contends that the worker terminated her
own employment by walking off the premises. As a consequence of
this meeting the Union requested that the issue be referred to a
Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. The
Company agreed to this. Following investigation of 12th, 13th
August, 1986 and 17th November, 1986, the Rights Commissioner
issued the following recommendation:
"The Union have not established that she was dismissed.
The evidence from the Federated Union of Employers that
she walked out and was asked by the Manager to
re-consider her decision is substantiated by one
witness. On that basis I can only conclude that it was
not an unfair dismissal and that no satisfaction may be
required of the Company."
The Union appealed this recommendation to the Labour Court under
Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 on 26th
November, 1986. A Labour Court hearing was held on 9th January,
1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) The worker had been unfairly harassed by the Manager
since his appointment and the incident on the 25th
January, 1986 was the final straw.
(b) The Company's submission that the worker was asked to
reconsider her position by the Manager in front of a
witness on 25th January as she was walking off the
premises is incorrect. The worker was told she was
fired and was escorted by the Manager off the premises.
(c) The worker did not raise the issue until April, 1986
because she was afraid it might cause trouble for the
other Union members of staff, and also she was looking
for a reference as she had a chance of another job.
When she did not receive a reference she then took
action against the Company for unfair dismissal.
(d) The worker is seeking an apology from the Company for
the boorish manner in which the Manager treated her and
also that they pay her compensation.
Company's arguments:
5. (i) The worker refused to carry out a reasonable
instruction issued by Management. The job she was
asked to do was that which is carried out by any sales
assistant in the shop.
(ii) As well as refusing to carry out a reasonable
instruction she aggravated the situation further by
tearing up the letter in front of the Manager.
(iii) The worker walked off the premises. She was not
dismissed. She was asked to reconsider her position
but failed to do so. Her P.45 etc. were sent out to
her as the Company assumed she no longer wished to work
for them. The worker did not take any action until 3
months after the incident. Had she felt she was
unfairly dismissed, she would have taken action much
sooner.
(iv) There was a witness (another member of staff) to the
incident of 25th January, 1986 whose evidence
corroborates that of the Manager.
DECISION:
5. The Court is of the opinion that the Rights Commissioners
Recommendation should stand and so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_________________________
Deputy Chairman.
13th February, 1987.
M.D./J.C.