Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87896 Case Number: LCR11642 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: CAMPBELL CATERING LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Claim concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is satisfied that the claimant was not unfairly
dismissed but was let go because of re-organisation necessary to
cut costs. The Court has noted that his services with the Company
were satisfactory and, that should he re-apply for employment in
the future, the Company would be prepared to consider his
application.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87896 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11642
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: CAMPBELL CATERING LIMITED
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Claim concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. Campbell Catering is a contract catering company which
operates in a number of units throughout the country. In May,
1987, it was awarded the contract to provide a service in the
Spawell Sports and Leisure Complex in Templeogue. The worker
concerned joined the Company as a chef in the Spawell unit in
June, 1987.
3. In October, 1987, the Company implemented a rationalisation
programme because it claimed that the volume of business in the
unit had not been what was expected. A total of six people were
let go, including the worker concerned and his contract was
terminated on the 29th October, 1987. He referred a claim for
unfair dismissal to a Rights Commissioner but the Company declined
to attend a hearing and he subsequently referred his case to the
Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1969, agreeing beforehand to be bound by the Court's
recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the 11th December,
1987.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is the worker's contention that he was dismissed
because the Company wanted to bring someone else in to do his
job at a lower wage.
2. He claims that a chef who was on a rate of #3.75 per hour
should have been let go before he was (his own rate was #4.35
per hour). In addition, a waiter from the Bistro was brought
into the kitchen to cook food and a chef from another unit
was brought in to work every Sunday.
3. The worker is of the view that he should have been given
a job in one of the Company's other units.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Company was involved in a genuine rationalisation
programme which resulted in six people losing their
employment in the Spawell Complex. Regrettably, the Company
had no option but to make this decision due to the lack of
business and consequent low margins on which the Company is
operating.
2. Since implementing this decision, the Company has been
vindicated in that there has been a subsequent increase in
revenue to the Company although there has not been a
comparable increase in business. The worker has not been
replaced and the duties which were carried out by him have
been re-assigned to other personnel in the kitchen area.
3. Understandably, he does not appreciate the circumstances
in which is employment was terminated and believes that he
was unfairly treated. However, it can be quite clearly seen
that the Management acted in a proper fashion and there was a
genuine redundancy situation taking place.
4. There was no basis for him to assume that his employment
was being terminated for any other reason, because his
reference quite clearly indicates that the Company was
satisfied with his performance.
5. Furthermore, the Manager who actually selected him for
redundancy was new to the Unit and therefore had no reason to
bear any ill feeling toward him. It can only be assumed that
he has pursued this claim on the basis that he feels that
there must have been some sort of ill feeling which resulted
in him being treated unfairly.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court is satisfied that the claimant was not unfairly
dismissed but was let go because of re-organisation necessary to
cut costs. The Court has noted that his services with the Company
were satisfactory and, that should he re-apply for employment in
the future, the Company would be prepared to consider his
application.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
12th January, 1988 Nicholas Fitzgerald
D.H./P.W. Deputy Chairman