Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88232 Case Number: LCR11832 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: WHICH CLOTHING COMPANY - and - A WORKER |
Claim that a worker was unfairly dismissed.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and is of the view that the claimant was most unfairly treated in
the manner of the notification of his dismissal - even though his
dismissal was warranted by commercial considerations. The Court
notes that the letter of dismissal was dated 22nd January, 1988 on
which day the claimant was at work but was not delivered to his
home until the evening of 23rd January and delivery was effected
by taxi. The Court accordingly recommends that the claimant be
paid a further week's wages in settlement of his claim and that he
be considered for any suitable vacancies arising in the Company.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88232 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11832
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: WHICH CLOTHING COMPANY
(TRADING AS NEXT LIMITED)
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Claim that a worker was unfairly dismissed.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed by the Company as a supervisor, in the
expresso bar in the Company's cafe in Grafton Street from 30th
April, 1987 until his dismissal on 23rd January, 1988. The letter
of dismissal was delivered to the worker's home by taxi on
Saturday evening 23rd January, 1988, which was his day off. He
received one week's pay in lieu of notice plus other entitlements
and received a reference from the Company. Towards the end of
January, 1988 the worker referred a claim for unfair dismissal to
a Rights Commissioner. However the Company was not willing to
have a Rights Commissioner investigate the matter. On 18th March,
1988 the worker referred his claim to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation under Section 20(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1967. A Labour Court hearing was held
on 15th April, 1988.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company stated the dismissal was due to restructuring
of the cafe. However since then the worker found out that
the Company had carried out no restructuring and had
indeed advertised for staff.
2. The way the dismissal was carried out, without any notice
or real justification, was mean and underhanded. The
worker had received promotion and a pay rise a few weeks
previously and then suddenly on his day off he returned
home to have his parents tell him he had been sacked.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The cafe in Grafton Street was over-staffed and costs were
at an unsustainably high level. Therefore the Company had
no option but to implement the restructuring.
4. 2. The position of supervisor was eliminated, and as no
vacancy existed elsewhere, the worker's employment was
terminated. He was selected on the basis that (a) he was
the individual in the position (b) his rate of pay was
approximately £20.00 per week higher than a general worker
and (c) because of his short service.
3. The Company took its decision purely on commercial
grounds.
4. The Company are prepared to consider the worker for any
suitable vacancy which may arise in the future. In
addition the Company would be prepared to include him in
the pool of part-time workers. The Company's position is
fair and reasonable.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and is of the view that the claimant was most unfairly treated in
the manner of the notification of his dismissal - even though his
dismissal was warranted by commercial considerations. The Court
notes that the letter of dismissal was dated 22nd January, 1988 on
which day the claimant was at work but was not delivered to his
home until the evening of 23rd January and delivery was effected
by taxi. The Court accordingly recommends that the claimant be
paid a further week's wages in settlement of his claim and that he
be considered for any suitable vacancies arising in the Company.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Nicholas Fitzgerald
___29th___April,___1988. ______________________
T. O'M. / M. F. Deputy Chairman