Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88833 Case Number: LCR12172 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: MEATH METAL PRODUCTS LIMITED - and - FEDERATED WORKERS UNION OF IRELAND |
Claim on behalf of a worker for reinstatement and for compensation.
Recommendation:
9. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court has come to the conclusion that the dismissal of the worker
was not unwarranted but procedures appropriate to the situation
were not applied insofar as he was given no warning of the
employers dissatisfaction. For this reason the Court recommends
that he should be paid the sum of #250.00
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88833 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12172
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: MEATH METAL PRODUCTS LIMITED
and
FEDERATED WORKERS UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of a worker for reinstatement and for
compensation.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company which is a small firm based in Kilcock is engaged
in metal fabrication, shopfitting and general contractor work.
3. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company on
4th January, 1988 as a welder and fabricator earning #140 for a 40
hour week. This was subsequently increased to #160 a week in
February, 1988. The workers employment was terminated on the 29th
July, 1988. Initially he was the only full time employee and up
until the beginning of July the only one specialised in welding
and fabrication work.
4. The employer and the worker enjoyed a good working
relationship up until the beginning of July when the worker
claimed an increase of #40 a week. This was subsequently rejected
by the employer on the grounds that he could not afford to pay
such an increase at that time. The worker also questioned the
method by which his overtime was paid. After this the
relationship between the two parties deteriorated. The worker
considered that he was being victimised whilst the employer
considered that the worker was being unco-operative.
5. At the end of July the worker was due to go on holidays and
when he was collecting his wages words were exchanged with his
employer which led to the termination of his employment.
6. The worker then referred a claim for alleged unfair dismissal
to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation but
the Company declined an invitation to attend. The worker then
referred his case to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the
Court's recommendation. The worker then approached his Union
about the matter and he was represented by the Union at the Court
hearing which was held on 24th November, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. It appears that the worker was victimised in this case.
His skills were used to help establish the Company and when he
sought an increase in wages to which he was entitled he was
dismissed.
2. About mid July the Company employed another welder. The
worker here concerned found that gradually a lot of work
formerly carried out by him was being transferred to the new
welder. Also there was a cut in his overtime allocation.
3. When the worker asked the reason for his dismissal he was
told it was because he was unhappy. The employer refused to
elaborate on this when pressed by the worker. The worker
admits that he was unhappy at that time. He had suffered two
recent bereavements in his family. However this did not
interfere with his work performance.
4. The Union is requesting that the Court find in favour of
the worker by recommending that he be re-instated and that he
be compensated for loss of earnings for the period from
August, 1988 to date.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. Up until the time the worker was refused a wage rise in
July an excellent work relationship was enjoyed by both
parties. The reason for refusing the increase in wages was
that the Company could not afford it at that time. It is a
small Company which has to remain competitive in order to
survive in tough market conditions.
2. The worker was unable to accept this and embarked on
effectively what could be described as a work to rule. He
became very unco-operative and at one time because of his
refusal to work overtime there was a delay in getting out a
very important order. Also he was only about 50% as
productive as the other welder who was employed by the
Company.
3. It was obvious that as time went on the worker was unhappy
at his work and there did not appear to be any signs of
improvement. The Company it was left with no option but to
dismiss him in the best interest of both parties. This was
done when he was due to go on holidays so as to avoid any
embarrassment for him in front of his work colleagues.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court has come to the conclusion that the dismissal of the worker
was not unwarranted but procedures appropriate to the situation
were not applied insofar as he was given no warning of the
employers dissatisfaction. For this reason the Court recommends
that he should be paid the sum of #250.00
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_________________________
16th December, 1988 Deputy Chairman.
M.D./J.C.