Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88557 Case Number: LCR12000 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: MCLOUGHLIN'S FILLING STATIONS - and - A WORKER |
Alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
8. The fact that the employer chose not to attend or be
represented at the Court hearing did not help the Court in its
consideration of this case. However on the basis of the evidence
presented by the claimant the Court is satisfied that he was
unfairly dismissed. The Court accordingly recommends that he be
re-instated within four weeks of the date of this recommendation.
In the event of the employer failing to re-instate him he should
be paid the sum of £400 compensation.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88557 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12000
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: MCLOUGHLIN'S FILLING STATIONS
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was employed at the Company's garage in
Swords, Co. Dublin as a petrol pump attendant from 10th October,
1987, to 16th April, 1988.
3. There were two shifts in operation at the Garage; 7 a.m. to
3 p.m. and 3 p.m. to 10 p.m. The worker was paid at the rate of
£2.25 per hour. He was also required to work overtime on
occasions and the worker estimates he worked approximately 6-8
hours overtime a week for which he was paid at the flat rate.
4. On the 16th April, 1988, the worker was informed by the
Company that his employment was being terminated and the reason
given to him for same was that he was uncooperative and would not
work what the Company considered enough overtime.
5. The worker referred the matter to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. The Company declined an
invitation to attend a Rights Commissioner's investigation. The
worker then referred the matter to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation under Section 20(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Court hearing was held on 5th
August, 1988. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's
recommendation.
6. By letter dated the 28th July, 1988, the Company informed the
Court that it would not be attending or represented at the
hearing. It also informed the Court that the worker's employment
was terminated because he failed to reach an acceptable standard
and also refused to work overtime when requested.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The worker carried out his duties to the best of his
abilities and never gave Management any grounds for
terminating his employment. He was never disciplined or
given any warning regarding his conduct or alleged
uncooperativeness.
2. Most requests to work overtime came on the days that the
overtime was to be worked. In fact, the worker changed his
personal arrangements on a number of occasions in order to
facilitate the Company (details supplied to the Court).
3. The worker contends that the reason for his dismissal was
the fact that he queried the rate of payment for overtime
working. He worked St. Patrick's day on overtime and was
paid at the flat rate. Following representations on his
behalf be was paid double time for that day. It was shortly
after this incident that the worker was dismissed.
RECOMMENDATION:
8. The fact that the employer chose not to attend or be
represented at the Court hearing did not help the Court in its
consideration of this case. However on the basis of the evidence
presented by the claimant the Court is satisfied that he was
unfairly dismissed. The Court accordingly recommends that he be
re-instated within four weeks of the date of this recommendation.
In the event of the employer failing to re-instate him he should
be paid the sum of £400 compensation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
16th August, 1988 Nicholas Fitzgerald
M.D./P.W. Deputy Chairman