Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89667 Case Number: AD8975 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: CASTLE CURTAINS AND BLINDS LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Appeal by a worker of Rights Commissioner's recommendation B.C. 112/89 concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
4. The Court, in the absence of representations from the
employer, is of the opinion that the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation should stand.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Shiel Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89667 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD7589
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: CASTLE CURTAINS AND BLINDS LIMITED
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by a worker of Rights Commissioner's recommendation
B.C. 112/89 concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker maintains that he was employed by the Company on
the understanding that it would be in a permanent capacity.
However, on 10th April, 1989, after approximately 5 months
employment he was dismissed without notice. The worker did not
receive any pay in lieu of notice. The matter was referred to a
Rights Commissioner for investigation. The Rights Commissioner
issued the following recommendation.
"I am satisfied that the worker was unfairly dismissed from
his employment by his employer. I am also of the view that
both parties could have dealt more sensibly with the matter.
I do not recommend re-instatement. My recommendation is that
Castle Curtains and Blinds Limited should pay to the worker
the sum of #600 and that this be accepted by the him in full
and final settlement of all claims on the Company in relation
to the termination of his employment."
(Both the worker and his employer were named in the
recommendation).
The Rights Commissioner's recommendation was unacceptable to the
worker, who appealed it on 20th September, 1989, to the Labour
Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
The Court heard the appeal on 16th October, 1989. The employer
was not represented at the appeal.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker concerned gave up permanent employment with
another firm in order to work for the Company. It was
understood that this position would be permanent. The Company
failed to provide him with the necessary equipment to do his
work.
2. The Company did not provide a reference for the worker nor
did he receive any payment in lieu of notice. Subsequent to
the issuing of the Rights Commissioner's recommendation the
Company did pay him #164.20 which was the equivalent of one
weeks pay. The worker contends that the compensation
recommended by the Rights Commissioner should be increased.
DECISION:
4. The Court, in the absence of representations from the
employer, is of the opinion that the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation should stand.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
___________________________
7th November, 1989. Deputy Chairman
B.O'N./J.C.