Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88685 Case Number: LCR12081 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: MILVERTON QUARRIES LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Claim for alleged unfair dismissal by a worker.
Recommendation:
6. On the basis of the submissions made by the worker it seems to
the Court that he was put at serious disadvantage, having left a
job in order to take up what he considered to be permanent
emploment. As his former job will not be available to him for
some months to come, it is likely that he will be unemployed for
that period. In the circumstances the Court recommends that he be
paid compensation to the amount of #250.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88685 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12081
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: MILVERTON QUARRIES LIMITED
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for alleged unfair dismissal by a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned, who lives in the Balbriggan area worked
for a number of years for a building contractor on the south side
of Dublin. He heard that there was a vacancy at the Company which
is situated in Skerries and much nearer to the worker's home. He
applied for the job, was interviewed and subsequently hired.
3. He commenced employment on 12th July, 1988 and was dismissed
on 6th August, 1988. He sought an investigation by a Rights
Commissioner. The Company declined an invitation to attend the
investigation. 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 recommendation of the Court. The
Court investigated the claim on 3rd October, 1988.
4. The Company did not attend the Court hearing.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. When the worker was interviewed for the job he was asked
could he drive. He informed his employer that he could not
drive but if necessary he would be prepared to do some driving
when required. The worker was surprised to find when he
started work, that the job entailed all driving. The driving
duties involved were very onerous (details supplied to the
Court).
2. The worker experienced numerous difficulties which were
due to his inexperience. After three weeks he was dismissed
and the reason given for his dismissal was that the night
shift was being discontinued. As far as the worker is
concerned another man was hired to replace him on the night
shift.
3. The worker considers that he was unfairly treated in that
he was misled as to the type of work he would be doing and not
given sufficient training. He was then dismissed without any
notice or without being given an opportunity to prove himself.
This is the first time he has been out of work (working for
past 18 years). He has always carried out his duties in an
exemplary manner and feels the treatment meeted out to him is
a slight on his character. Under the circumstances he is
asking the Court to recommend that the Company issue him with
a favourable reference.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. On the basis of the submissions made by the worker it seems to
the Court that he was put at serious disadvantage, having left a
job in order to take up what he considered to be permanent
emploment. As his former job will not be available to him for
some months to come, it is likely that he will be unemployed for
that period. In the circumstances the Court recommends that he be
paid compensation to the amount of #250.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_________________________
25th October, 1988. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.