Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88484 Case Number: LCR12017 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: WOLVERCOAT CLEANERS - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim on behalf of one worker that he was unfairly dismissed.
Recommendation:
4. On the evidence available to it the Court finds that this
worker was dismissed without cause and recommends that he be paid
£1,300 in compensation.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88484 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12017
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: WOLVERCOAT CLEANERS
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of one worker that he was unfairly dismissed.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker commenced employment with the Company on 4th May,
1987 and received £140 net per week for a six day week. He was
the only employee competent to operate the dry cleaning machinery
and pressing operation until, at his request, another worker was
employed to train and operate with him. On 26th January, 1988 the
worker was given notice that he would not be employed after the
end of the week. He received all monies due to him on termination
of his employment. The Union on his behalf, sought to have the
worker's case for unfair dismissal heard by a Rights Commissioner.
However, the Company refused to attend a Rights Commissioner's
hearing. The Union, therefore, referred the matter to the Labour
Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969
and undertook to accept the recommendation of the Court. The
Court investigated the matter at a hearing in Limerick on 24th
August, 1988. The Company was not represented at the hearing.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was employed on the strength of his fifteen
years' service with another cleaning company. He was the only
employee competent to operate the dry cleaning machinery until
at his request another person was taken on and trained by him.
On Saturday 23rd January the worker was told not to come in on
Monday. He was suspicious at this instruction as he felt that
the operation was being tested to see if the business could
run without him. On Tuesday 26th January he was given notice.
3. 2. The worker was given no reason for being sacked. The
only incident in which he was involved was at Christmas and
that was settled amicably among those involved. However, the
worker did receive a written warning as a result. The Union
has confirmed that there was no complaint made against the
worker after the incident and none of those involved held any
ill will towards him. The Union believes that no reason
existed that would justify the worker's dismissal.
3. The worker is married with three children and, on the
strength of his salary at the time, has a mortgage. He is
honest, reliable and hard working and his earnest wish is to
return to work (but this may not be in the best interests of
either party). He is on Social Welfare benefit at present
which represents a reduction of £48 per week or a total loss
to date of £1300 since his dismissal.
RECOMMENDATION:
4. On the evidence available to it the Court finds that this
worker was dismissed without cause and recommends that he be paid
£1,300 in compensation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
9th September, 1988 ----------------
R.B./U.S. Chairman