Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88134 Case Number: LCR11788 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: LADBROKES LIMITED - and - A WORKER;THE FREE LEGAL ADVICE CENTRES LIMITED (F.L.A.C. |
Claim on behalf of a dismissed worker for re-instatement.
Recommendation:
9. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, is satisfied that there is no evidence connecting the
claimant with the theft of the money. The Court has also noted
that the employer has stated that the dismissal was not because of
the theft.
The reason given by the employer for the dismissal as submitted to
the Court was not one which would in the Court's view justify
dismissal. Accordingly the Court recommends that the claimant be
re-instated or suitably compensated.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88134 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11788
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: LADBROKES LIMITED
and
A WORKER
(Represented by the Free Legal Advice Centres Limited (F.L.A.C.)
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of a dismissed worker for re-instatement.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company are bookmakers who have Branches throughout
Dublin. The worker concerned was employed at its Amiens Street,
Branch as a board marker from 22nd June, 1987, up to the 10th
October, 1987.
3. On the 15th October, 1987, there was a break-in on the
premises and a sum of money was stolen. The break-in was
discovered by the worker concerned and a co-worker who notified
the Gardai. The break-in was investigated by the Gardai and the
Company's head of security. The investigation suggested strongly
that it was an "inside job" but failed to establish who was
involved.
4. The three workers in the Branch were subsequently dismissed.
The Company informed the worker concerned that on re-checking his
reference from a previous employer it was found to be
unsatisfactory and accordingly it was decided that he should be
dismissed from his employment.
5. The worker referred his case to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. The Company declined an
invitation to attend a Rights Commissioner's investigation.
6. The worker then referred his case to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation under Section 20(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Court hearing was held on 22nd
March, 1988.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. It is unfair and unreasonable that he be dismissed
because of an alleged discrepancy in his application about
which he was never asked and which had no relevance to his
competence to do his job. He was very competent at his job
and had considerable experience. There were no complaints
from the Company about his performance and they specifically
said that the dismissal was not related to the break-in on
the 15th October, 1987.
2. The worker received no reference from the Company.
Because of this he has been unable to obtain alternative
employment. He therefore requests the Court to recommend
that he be re-instated to his former position.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The Company, as a result of the investigation which
indicated that the break-in had been an "inside job", decided
to re-examine the references of all three employees in the
shop. It emerged from this re-examination that the worker's
reference from his previous employer was far from
satisfactory (details supplied to the Court). Therefore the
Company was left with no alternative but to dismiss him.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, is satisfied that there is no evidence connecting the
claimant with the theft of the money. The Court has also noted
that the employer has stated that the dismissal was not because of
the theft.
The reason given by the employer for the dismissal as submitted to
the Court was not one which would in the Court's view justify
dismissal. Accordingly the Court recommends that the claimant be
re-instated or suitably compensated.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
12th April, 1988 Nicholas Fitzgerald
M.D./P.W. Deputy Chairman