Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89743 Case Number: AD8990 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: BEECH PARK GOLF CLUB - and - A WORKER |
Appeal by the worker against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. B.C. 35/89 concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
In the light of the above I must conclude that Beechpark Golf
Club unfairly dismissed the worker from its employment. I
recommend accordingly.
I do not propose reinstatement or reengagement but I
recommend that Beechpark Golf Club pay to the worker the sum
of #500 and that this is accepted by him in full and final
settlement of all claims on the management of the club
concerning the termination of his employment.
The worker was referred to by name in the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation.
5. The worker appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court
under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 on the
grounds that he had not received a reference from the Golf Club
and that he had not received any compensation. The Court heard
the appeal on the 1st December, 1989.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The worker was not given any reason for his dismissal when
his employment was terminated. He never had any complaints
about his work and in fact was complimented on his competency
when he worked as acting bar manager.
2. The reasons cited for his dismissal at the Rights
Commissioner's hearing were refuted by the worker, and the
Rights Commissioner found in his favour. However the worker
considers that the Rights Commissioner should have recommended
that the Golf Club issue him with a suitable and fair
reference.
CLUB'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The Committee was not satisfied with the running of the
bar. There were continuous cash shortages and stocktaking
records were not kept up to date. The Committee discussed the
matter following which a vote was taken and the worker
dismissed.
DECISION:
8. The Court having heard the submissions of both parties does
not find grounds for altering the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation which it finds to have been appropriate both in its
findings and its award.
It is the view of the Court that the Committee should arrange for
a suitable reference to be given to the claimant and that the
award as recommended by the Rights Commissioner should be
implemented.
The Court so decides.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89743 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD9089
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: BEECH PARK GOLF CLUB
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the worker against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. B.C. 35/89 concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced work as a barman with the Club
on 25th May, 1988. Initially he carried out general bar duties.
On 5th July, 1988 the bar manager left and the worker was
requested by the Committee to perform the bar managers duties
until a replacement was hired. This he did for approximately two
months, for which he received an extra #20 per week and also a
bonus of #500 when the replacement manager took over.
3. The replacement manager left after about 4 weeks and the bar
was then run by the chairman of the House Committee. The worker's
only involvement in the managing side of the bar was to inform the
chairman of stock requirements.
4. The worker concerned was dismissed from his employment on the
26th January, 1989 and no reason for his dismissal was given to
him at that time. The worker referred his case to a Rights
Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. The Rights
Commissioner investigated the dispute on the 29th March, 1989 and
issued the following recommendation dated 12th April, 1989:-
"Findings
Having investigated the matter and having given full and
careful consideration to the points made by both parties I
have come to the following conclusions:
1. I note that the worker has now secured another position.
2. I am satisfied that a feature of the running of the bar
in the Golf Club had been a perpetuation of stock
shortages.
3. No real evidence was produced to suggest that the worker
was in any way responsible for this.
4. With regard to the issues of drinking on the premises
and attire I believe the former allegation remains
unfounded and with regard to the latter I believe that
on one occasion the worker was reprimanded for failing
to be properly attired.
5. I note what management has said with regard to the
worker taking unauthorised "subs" but this I understand
had ceased when its undesirability had been pointed out
to him.
Recommendation
In the light of the above I must conclude that Beechpark Golf
Club unfairly dismissed the worker from its employment. I
recommend accordingly.
I do not propose reinstatement or reengagement but I
recommend that Beechpark Golf Club pay to the worker the sum
of #500 and that this is accepted by him in full and final
settlement of all claims on the management of the club
concerning the termination of his employment.
The worker was referred to by name in the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation.
5. The worker appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court
under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 on the
grounds that he had not received a reference from the Golf Club
and that he had not received any compensation. The Court heard
the appeal on the 1st December, 1989.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The worker was not given any reason for his dismissal when
his employment was terminated. He never had any complaints
about his work and in fact was complimented on his competency
when he worked as acting bar manager.
2. The reasons cited for his dismissal at the Rights
Commissioner's hearing were refuted by the worker, and the
Rights Commissioner found in his favour. However the worker
considers that the Rights Commissioner should have recommended
that the Golf Club issue him with a suitable and fair
reference.
CLUB'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The Committee was not satisfied with the running of the
bar. There were continuous cash shortages and stocktaking
records were not kept up to date. The Committee discussed the
matter following which a vote was taken and the worker
dismissed.
DECISION:
8. The Court having heard the submissions of both parties does
not find grounds for altering the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation which it finds to have been appropriate both in its
findings and its award.
It is the view of the Court that the Committee should arrange for
a suitable reference to be given to the claimant and that the
award as recommended by the Rights Commissioner should be
implemented.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
_________________________
12th December, 1989. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.