Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89196 Case Number: LCR12400 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: VIENNA WOODS HOTEL - and - A WORKER |
Claim by the worker for compensation for his alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court is of the view that the claimant should have been given a
formal warning that his employment would be terminated if he did
not measure up to management's requirements. In the circumstances
the Court considers that he was rather abruptly dismissed without
due warning. The Court recommends that management pay him a lump
sum of #150 compensation in full and final settlement of his
claim.
The Court notes management's undertaking to furnish the claimant
with a reference.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89196 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12400
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: VIENNA WOODS HOTEL
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the worker for compensation for his alleged unfair
dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Hotel as a
trainee manager on 26th October, 1988. His duties involved
working in all areas of the Hotel, including the bar, kitchen and
reception. The worker alleges that when he returned to work
following a 2 day break, the manager informed him that he was
being "let go". He was also given a weeks wages. No explanation
was given at the time for his dismissal. A member of his family
was subsequently told that his overall performance and attitude
was not suitable. The worker feels that he was dismissed unfairly
and that he should have been given a full explanation regarding
the reasons for his dismissal. In March, 1989, the worker
referred the matter to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. The Court investigated the matter on 26th April, 1989,
in Cork. Prior to the Court's investigation the worker agreed to
be bound by the Court's recommendation.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. At no stage was the worker informed that he was being
employed on a three month trial basis. All he was told was
that he was being given the position of trainee manager and
that if he remained for 2 years he may be appointed as an
assistant manager.
2. He was initially paid #49 gross per week, rising to #54
gross per week. Management had promised the increase,
however, he had to ask for the increase as it was not
forthcoming. He worked over 60 hours per week.
3. The worker maintains that he did all that was asked of
him. At no stage was he told that he was unsuitable. If he
was he should have been advised of this early on so that he
could improve. He was not given any warning, verbal or
written. The job was the first job the worker has had and in
these circumstances he was not treated fairly.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Hotel management were dissatisfied with the worker's
overall performance, approach and attitude (details supplied
to the Court). Having taken all matters into account,
management considered that it was correct, for both the Hotel
and the worker, to terminate his employment. It was
considered best to give him the chance to seek alternative
employment or to take up an alternative career.
2. Had the management sought to exploit the worker, he would
have been kept on until the end of the busy Christmas period.
Management chose not to do that, but rather to try to be as
fair to him as possible.
3. The worker was prepared to work, however, he seemed to
prefer to carry out certain duties rather than others and was
inclined to spend more time than was necessary on certain
duties so as to be unavailable for other duties in the Hotel.
Unfortunately, it was felt that he did not help the smooth
running of the Hotel and was not suited to the position.
4. The Hotel management cannot accept that his career has
been irreparably damaged, but rather he has an opportunity to
give further consideration as to whether he is suited to the
business or as to whether another type of career might be more
suitable.
5. The Hotel management were under the impression that this
job was not his first. Management understood that prior to
his employment he had worked for another business and also
understood that subsequent to his employment with the Hotel he
had gone back working for that business.
6. A hotel can only be managed and conducted properly and
successfully if all staff are working together in a proper and
planned way and in a good working atmosphere, particularly in
a small hotel. The worker's overall performance, approach and
attitude were not satisfactory in this regard.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court is of the view that the claimant should have been given a
formal warning that his employment would be terminated if he did
not measure up to management's requirements. In the circumstances
the Court considers that he was rather abruptly dismissed without
due warning. The Court recommends that management pay him a lump
sum of #150 compensation in full and final settlement of his
claim.
The Court notes management's undertaking to furnish the claimant
with a reference.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
______________________
24th May, 1989. Deputy Chairman
B.O'N/J.C.