Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8927 Case Number: AD8914 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: BALROTHERY SERVICE STATION LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Appeal by a worker against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation NO. BC267/88 concerning her alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
In the light of the above I must hold that the worker was
unfairly dismissed by Balrothery Service Station Limited. I
do not however recommend reinstatement. My recommendation is
that the Company should pay to the worker the sum of #750 and
this to be accepted by her in full and final settlement of
all claims on the Company."
(The worker was referred to by name in the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation).
3. The worker rejected the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation
and on 20th December, 1988, she appealed it to the Labour Court
under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The
Court heard the appeal on 2nd February, 1989.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker contends that when she commenced employment
with the Company she was told that there would be a 3 month
trial period. If at the end of the trial period she was
satisfactory then she would receive a pay increase.
2. On 11th August, 1988, following the employment of a new
manager at the station, the worker concerned and another
worker approached the manager and asked for the pay increase
which was due in June, 1988. The manager said that he would
check with the owner of the station and let them know. On
12th August, 1988, the workers were informed that a pay
increase could not be given at that time. They were told to
wait till 26th August, 1988 to see how things were going. The
Company had applied for planning permission to open a shop in
the forecourt of the station and hoped that things would be
better after the shop opened. The worker concerned was
unhappy with this as she had been told that the Company did
not expect to get planning permission and as a result the wage
increase issue could drag on for months. The worker indicated
that she intended taking the matter to a third party. That
evening the worker was informed that she was being dismissed.
The Company would not inform her of the reasons for her
dismissal.
3. The worker feels that the award of #750 by the Rights
Commissioner does not adequately compensate her for the
anguish of being dismissed and the resultant 'stain' on her
character, which will make it very difficult to secure another
employment position.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. When the worker was employed she was advised that it was a
new enterprise and that a wage increase could not be
guaranteed at the end of her 3 months probation. She was made
aware that any increase would only be given if the conditions
at the time made it feasible.
2. The worker, although satisfactory in some respects as an
employee, was unsatisfactory in others, especially in relation
to her appearance, keeping the console area tidy, making tea
outside of the authorised break times, unauthorised use of the
telephone and reading books while on duty.
3. When she was informed that she would receive her pay
increase on 26th August, 1988, she requested retrospection to
1st July, 1988, the date on which her probation expired. She
was informed that this was not possible and that no agreement
to the effect that she would receive an increase on that date
had been made.
4. She became quite belligerent and abusive subsequent to
being advised of the decision on the pay rise. She caused
unrest amongst the other staff at the Station. In view of
this conduct and in view of the previous complaints regarding
her employment it was decided that her employment would be
terminated. She was given one week's wages which she
accepted, in lieu of notice and was dismissed.
5. The Company is of the view that it had adequate reason to
be dissatisfied with the worker's conduct and that she had
adequate opportunity to amend and improve her conduct. The
Company feels justified in its actions.
DECISION:
6. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court agrees with the Rights Commissioner's views and
Recommendation. The Court therefore upholds his Recommendation
and rejects the appeal.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8927 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD1489
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: BALROTHERY SERVICE STATION LIMITED
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by a worker against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation NO. BC267/88 concerning her alleged unfair
dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker commenced employment with the Company on 14th
April, 1988, initially, on a 3 month trial basis. On 12th August,
1988, she was dismissed. The Company contends that she was
dismissed as a result of the belligerent attitude and abusive
manner she adopted when the Company refused to backdate an
improvement in her hourly rate beyond 26th August, 1988. The
worker concerned wanted the increase to be retrospective to 1st
July, 1988, which she understood to be an undertaking given by the
Company when she was originally employed. The worker referred her
dismissal to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and on 24th
October, 1988, the Rights Commissioner issued the following
findings and recommendation.
"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 had suggested taking the issue of
the backdating of an increase in pay to a third party
i.e. the Labour Court or a Rights Commissioner.
2. Quite obviously such a suggestion cannot be regarded as a
dismissible offence!
3. The Company when asked by me whether it was satisfied
with the worker's performance put forward suggestions
that on occasion she had to be warned about (1) her
appearance (2) keeping the place tidy, (3) taking longer
coffee breaks and (4) excessive use of telephone.
4. I note that these allegations were denied by the worker
who also denied that she had indeed been ever warned in
that connection.
5. I am satisfied that substantial grounds exist for
believing that the main reason for the Company deciding
to dismiss the worker was related to the fact that she
had pursued a claim for back pay and indicated an
intention of pursuing this further with a third party.
Recommendation
In the light of the above I must hold that the worker was
unfairly dismissed by Balrothery Service Station Limited. I
do not however recommend reinstatement. My recommendation is
that the Company should pay to the worker the sum of #750 and
this to be accepted by her in full and final settlement of
all claims on the Company."
(The worker was referred to by name in the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation).
3. The worker rejected the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation
and on 20th December, 1988, she appealed it to the Labour Court
under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The
Court heard the appeal on 2nd February, 1989.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker contends that when she commenced employment
with the Company she was told that there would be a 3 month
trial period. If at the end of the trial period she was
satisfactory then she would receive a pay increase.
2. On 11th August, 1988, following the employment of a new
manager at the station, the worker concerned and another
worker approached the manager and asked for the pay increase
which was due in June, 1988. The manager said that he would
check with the owner of the station and let them know. On
12th August, 1988, the workers were informed that a pay
increase could not be given at that time. They were told to
wait till 26th August, 1988 to see how things were going. The
Company had applied for planning permission to open a shop in
the forecourt of the station and hoped that things would be
better after the shop opened. The worker concerned was
unhappy with this as she had been told that the Company did
not expect to get planning permission and as a result the wage
increase issue could drag on for months. The worker indicated
that she intended taking the matter to a third party. That
evening the worker was informed that she was being dismissed.
The Company would not inform her of the reasons for her
dismissal.
3. The worker feels that the award of #750 by the Rights
Commissioner does not adequately compensate her for the
anguish of being dismissed and the resultant 'stain' on her
character, which will make it very difficult to secure another
employment position.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. When the worker was employed she was advised that it was a
new enterprise and that a wage increase could not be
guaranteed at the end of her 3 months probation. She was made
aware that any increase would only be given if the conditions
at the time made it feasible.
2. The worker, although satisfactory in some respects as an
employee, was unsatisfactory in others, especially in relation
to her appearance, keeping the console area tidy, making tea
outside of the authorised break times, unauthorised use of the
telephone and reading books while on duty.
3. When she was informed that she would receive her pay
increase on 26th August, 1988, she requested retrospection to
1st July, 1988, the date on which her probation expired. She
was informed that this was not possible and that no agreement
to the effect that she would receive an increase on that date
had been made.
4. She became quite belligerent and abusive subsequent to
being advised of the decision on the pay rise. She caused
unrest amongst the other staff at the Station. In view of
this conduct and in view of the previous complaints regarding
her employment it was decided that her employment would be
terminated. She was given one week's wages which she
accepted, in lieu of notice and was dismissed.
5. The Company is of the view that it had adequate reason to
be dissatisfied with the worker's conduct and that she had
adequate opportunity to amend and improve her conduct. The
Company feels justified in its actions.
DECISION:
6. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court agrees with the Rights Commissioner's views and
Recommendation. The Court therefore upholds his Recommendation
and rejects the appeal.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
________________________
22nd February, 1989 Deputy Chairman.
T.McC./B.O'N./J.C.