Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88696 Case Number: LCR12091 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: BATHCARE LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Dispute concerning the alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
Recommendation:
8. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court does not consider that the workers claim to have been
unfairly dismissed has been sustained. The Court therefore does
not recommend that any compensation be paid.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88696 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12091
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: BATHCARE LIMITED
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company provides hygiene services, sells and installs hand
dryers. It also leases the hand dryers on an agency basis.
3. On 7th December, 1987 the Company employed two sales
executives one of whom is the worker here concerned. Their
remuneration package consisted of a basic salary of #7,500 a year
plus commission, plus expenses and the use of a Company car.
4. The Company monitored the progress of the two workers. On
27th May, 1988 the Company decided to terminate the employment of
the worker here concerned on the basis that it could not afford to
keep him employed.
5. The worker referred a claim for unfair dismissal to a Rights
Commissioner but the Company declined an invitation to attend an
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. A
Court hearing was held on the 10th October, 1988.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The worker joined the Company the same time as another
sales executive. His sales figures were slightly higher than
his colleague in the hand dryer sales area. The Company was
paid in full for all machines sold. In the hygiene services
area, which is a separate operation, his figures were much up
to mid-April. The sales figures were roughly the same at the
time of the worker's dismissal. The worker considers that he
was unfairly treated in being selected for dismissal.
2. At the time of his dismissal, Management promised to send
on any commission due, some personal effects and his tax
forms. To-date he has not received his personal effects and
after a lot of chasing around he eventually received his other
documents and money. In view of this and the fact that he was
unfairly selected for dismissal the worker feels that he has
been victimised by the Company. Accordingly he is seeking
compensation in settlement of his claim.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The Company deny that the worker was unfairly dismissed.
They engaged the two workers at the one time and monitored
their progress on a regular basis. While, initially, the
sales figures of the worker here concerned were higher than
his colleague, his sales figures disimproved whereas his
colleague's sales figures improved. The Company had many
meetings with the workers to discuss the situation.
Eventually the Company was left with no choice but to dismiss
the worker concerned as his sales were not covering his costs
(details supplied to the Court).
RECOMMENDATION:
8. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court does not consider that the workers claim to have been
unfairly dismissed has been sustained. The Court therefore does
not recommend that any compensation be paid.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_______________________
25th October, 1988 Deputy Chairman.
M.D./J.C.