Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86892 Case Number: LCR10907 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: MARTELLO FREIGHT SERVICES LTD. - and - MR. P. A. DONOHUE |
Dismissal of a worker.
Recommendation:
4. Consideration of this case was not helped by the decision of
management not to attend the hearing. On the basis of the
evidence presented, the Court is of the view that the claimant was
rather harshly treated and should not have been dismissed in the
circumstances of this case. The Court recommends that he should
be re-instated in his job.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86892 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10907
SECTION 20(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 10907
PARTIES: MARTELLO FREIGHT SERVICES LTD.
and
A WORKER
Subject:
1. Dismissal of a worker.
Background:
2. The worker commenced employment with the Company as a 'dock
runner' in a permanent capacity on 31st September, 1985 at a
salary of #4,160 per annum. He was dismissed by the Company on
17th February, 1986, for refusing to carry out work after normal
working hours without either pay or time off in lieu of payment.
Monies due to the worker were delivered by hand and received. The
termination of employment was unacceptable to the worker who
contends that he was unfairly dismissed. As the Company declined
to take part in an investigation of the matter by a Rights
Commissioner the worker referred the dispute to the Labour Court,
under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 for
investigation and recommendation. The worker agreed to be bound
by the Court's recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute
on 9th December, 1986. The Company was not represented at the
Court hearing.
Worker's arguments:
3. (i) When engaged by the Company he was informed that his
normal working hours would be 9 a.m. to 5.30 p.m.
(ii) In the period of employment with the Company he had
worked approximately two hours outside normal working
hours and had been granted time off in lieu for this.
(iii) He would not work overtime without either pay or time
off in lieu, as in his opinion he would then be
expected to do so on future occasions.
RECOMMENDATION:
4. Consideration of this case was not helped by the decision of
management not to attend the hearing. On the basis of the
evidence presented, the Court is of the view that the claimant was
rather harshly treated and should not have been dismissed in the
circumstances of this case. The Court recommends that he should
be re-instated in his job.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
8th January, 1987 Nicholas Fitzgerald
U.M./P.W. Deputy Chairman