Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89440 Case Number: LCR12616 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: LAMBTEX LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Claim by a worker concerning his alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the evidence given at the hearing and the
additional information submitted by Lambtex Limited the Court is
satisfied that the claimant was paid his holiday entitlement and
the Court accordingly does not recommend payment of any sum in
relation to that part of the claim.
The Court considers that in all the circumstances of the case the
claimant should be paid #100 compensation for loss of employment.
The Court so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89440 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12616
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: LAMBTEX LIMITED
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by a worker concerning his alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company on
8th May, 1988. During the first week in July, 1988, he was 'let
go'. He maintains this was as a result of the Company's doubts
about his suitability because of the area in which he lives. The
worker further contends that he should have received a full weeks
wages in lieu of notice and some holiday money. The Company deny
casting any aspersions about the suitability of the area in which
he lives. The Company states that the business only started up in
April, 1988, and staff requirements were not known at the time.
It became obvious after a few weeks that there was more staff than
the business could carry. The worker concerned was 'let go'
because he was the last person to be taken on. The worker
referred the matter to a Rights Commissioner, however, the Company
declined to attend a Rights Commissioner's hearing. The worker
subsequently referred the matter to the Labour Court for
investigation under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1969. Prior to the Court's investigation of the matter on 21st
August, 1989, the worker agreed to be bound by the Court's
Recommendation.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker maintains that from the time he started
working for the Company the owner continually asked him
questions about the area he came from. On one occasion the
owner said that if it had been known where he lived he would
not have been employed. This was said in front of a witness.
2. On the Tuesday of the first week in July, 1988, the
worker, who arrived late because his bike had been stolen, was
informed that there was no work for him and that he was to
call back in two weeks. He did this, but was again informed
that there was still no work, even though a work colleague
informed him that there was work to last over 6 months.
3. 3. The worker claims that he should at least have received a
weeks pay, plus holiday money, when he was 'let go'. All he
in fact received was wages up to the day he finished.
4. The worker has been employed in positions of trust in
other factories in the past and he has never had any
suggestions made to him about the likelihood of theft because
of the area he lives in. The worker believes that he has been
unreasonably victimised by the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. A few weeks after the Company started up, it became
obvious that there were more staff employed than the business
could carry. The worker concerned was 'let go' because he was
the last one to be employed. When his employment was
terminated he received an extra weeks wages.
2. At no time during his short period with the Company was
there any suggestion that the worker would be in any way
dishonest. Neither, by implication or suggestion, were any
aspersions cast about the area in which he lives. The Company
was fully aware of his address. Why then should the Company
wish to terminate his employment because of his address?
3. The witness that the worker refers to is in fact his
fiancee. She informed staff at the Company of their
engagement. This girl has since left the Company of her own
volition.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the evidence given at the hearing and the
additional information submitted by Lambtex Limited the Court is
satisfied that the claimant was paid his holiday entitlement and
the Court accordingly does not recommend payment of any sum in
relation to that part of the claim.
The Court considers that in all the circumstances of the case the
claimant should be paid #100 compensation for loss of employment.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
__30th___October,__1989. ___________________
B. O'N. / M. F. Deputy Chairman