Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86695 Case Number: LCR10778 Section / Act: S67 Parties: WONDERBURGER - and - MR. MARTIN FARRELL |
Dispute concerning the dismissal of a worker.
Recommendation:
6. The Court is not satisfied that the employer was justified in
dismissing the worker concerned on the basis of the particular
incident which arose on his birthday and did not consider any of
the other reasons put forward in any way relevant to the issue.
Having regard to all the circumstances of the case therefore the
Court recommends that the worker be paid a sum of #750 in
compensation for the loss of his employment.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86695 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10778
SECTION 20(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR10778
Parties: WONDERBURGER
and
A WORKER
Subject:
1. Dispute concerning the dismissal of a worker.
Background:
2. The worker was employed by the Company in the capacity of
Manager/Security for night-time from 29th April, 1986, to 4th
August, 1986. Prior to this he was employed, on a part-time
basis, as a security man for approximately six months.
3. On the night of Sunday 3rd August, 1986, the worker was
accosted by other members of the staff who poured sauces etc. over
him. This was related to the fact that the worker had celebrated
his 21st birthday that week-end. The worker contends that the
premises were left in a proper condition after this occurrence
while the Company contends that the staff on the following shift
(Monday morning) were obliged to clean the premises. Following
this occurrence the Company terminated the worker's employment.
The worker claimed that his dismissal was unfair and sought to
have the matter dealt with by a Rights Commissioner. As the
Company was not agreeable to this course of action the worker
referred the matter to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. Prior to the Court hearing, which took place on 6th
October, 1986, the worker agreed to be bound by the Court's
recommendation.
Worker's arguments:
4. (i) Following the incident on the night of 3rd August,
1986, the staff cleaned up after themselves.
(ii) The worker's conduct and performance were never
questioned before this incident.
(iii) The Company supplied the worker with a good reference
on the termination of his employment.
Company's arguments:
5. (a) Following the incident on the night of 3rd August,
1986, the store was left in a disgraceful condition
(details supplied). The day manager was obliged to
clean up the next day.
(b) The worker was on a 6 month probationary period.
(c) The worker has a tattoo on his arm and he carried out
another business during the day (details supplied).
This was unacceptable to the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court is not satisfied that the employer was justified in
dismissing the worker concerned on the basis of the particular
incident which arose on his birthday and did not consider any of
the other reasons put forward in any way relevant to the issue.
Having regard to all the circumstances of the case therefore the
Court recommends that the worker be paid a sum of #750 in
compensation for the loss of his employment.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
______________________________
Deputy Chairman.
3rd February, 1987.
D.M./J.C.