Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89622 Case Number: LCR12627 Section / Act: S67 Parties: JOHN CULLEN AND SONS LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of a driver concerning his alleged wrongful dismissal.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is satisfied that the worker concerned was unfairly
dismissed even having regard to the terms of the general agreement
on redundancy and therefore recommends that the firm re-employs
him or pays a sum of #750 compensation.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Shiel Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89622 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12627
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: JOHN CULLEN AND SONS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FEDERATION)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of a driver concerning his
alleged wrongful dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was employed in October, 1986 as a
driver. At the beginning of December, 1988, he was informed that
both he and a second driver employed in August, 1987, were being
made redundant. (Approximately 10 workers were laid off at this
time due to a down-turn in business). The worker accepted his
redundancy and left the Company. He subsequently discovered that
the second driver was still working with the Company. The Union
claimed that if a driver was to be kept on it should be the worker
here concerned who has greater service with the Company,
therefore, he should be re-instated. The Company responded that
the second driver was more suitable for the work on hand. As no
agreement could be reached locally the dispute was referred on
10th May, 1989, to the conciliation service of the Labour Court.
No agreement could be reached at a conciliation conference held on
11th September, 1989, to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. The Court investigated the matter on 13th
October, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was employed by the Company for a period of two
years and three months. During this time he drove a range of
trucks, vans and forklifts. At no stage were there any
complaints regarding his work.
2. In December, 1988, he was informed that himself and the
Company's other driver were being made redundant. He
subsequently discovered that the other driver, who had less
service, had in fact been kept on. The Union maintain that on
the same day both drivers were "let go," the Company asked the
second driver to come back to work.
3. The Union believes that this was a mean and deceitful
method of dismissing the driver concerned. The Company knew
that there was work remaining for at least one driver. As the
worker concerned was the most senior driver, he should have
been retained to carry out this work.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The downturn in business, which led to approximately ten
workers being laid off, affected the contracting division of
the Company more so than the small works division. The second
driver had been engaged and identified closely with the small
works division and was very familiar with that area of
activity. Given the requirements of this area, in relation to
driving the van, the Company viewed the second driver to be
the most suitable driver to resume employment. For this
reason the second driver was re-employed in January, 1989.
2. The Company is currently in receivership. The Receiver's
present situation with regard to work is that there are five
people on lay-off at present and the only contracting work
includes two jobs that are running down with no immediate work
in prospect. The Receiver has no requirement for another
driver at present and is not in a position to re-employ the
worker concerned.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court is satisfied that the worker concerned was unfairly
dismissed even having regard to the terms of the general agreement
on redundancy and therefore recommends that the firm re-employs
him or pays a sum of #750 compensation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_______________________
7th November, 1989. Deputy Chairman
B.O'N./J.C.