Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89703 Case Number: LCR12631 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: J.R. MURPHY AND SONS LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Claim by a worker concerning his alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
5. From the contradictory nature of the submissions made
particularly in respect of the suggested probationary nature of
the workers initial employment the Court in view of the doubt
which exists in this regard, recommends that the worker concerned
be awarded a sum of two weeks salary in settlement of his claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89703 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12631
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: J.R. MURPHY AND SONS LIMITED
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by a worker concerning his alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was employed by the Company as a barman
on 29th July, 1989. He contends that he was employed on a
permanent basis. On 1st September, 1989, the Company informed the
worker that he was being let go as he was not suitable to the
particular Company. The worker concerned alleges that his
dismissal was unfair. As the Company declined an invitation to
attend a Rights Commissioner's investigation, the worker referred
the matter to the Labour Court on 5th October, 1989, for
investigation and recommendation under Section 20(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. Prior to the Court's
investigation on 31st October, 1989, the worker agreed to be bound
by the recommendation of the Court.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. When the worker was interviewed for the job he was
informed of the conditions of employment with the Company.
The worker asked was the job permanent and was informed that
it was. There was no mention of the job being subject to any
probationary period. At the time of his interview the worker
was on holidays and he offered to work for one week so that
his work could be assessed. The Company declined his offer
telling him to continue his holidays and come back fresh.
2. During the period of his employment the worker operated in
all departments. His work was satisfactory and at no stage
did anyone correct him. He was very surprised when he was
informed that he was being let go. The reference he was
furnished with by the Company confirms that he was a good
barman. (Copy supplied to the Court). The worker believes
that under the circumstances he should be re-instated.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was employed on a six week trial basis, as is
the practice in the trade. The Company maintains that this
was made clear to him at his interview.
2. During the period the worker was employed by the Company
he failed to display the particular qualities that the Company
requires for its staff in a busy premises. He was frequently
councelled and advised that he was not shaping up. In the
final analysis the Company felt he would be better suited to a
different type of premises.
3. The worker was furnished with a good reference by the
Company because in fairness he was a good barman, however, he
was not suited to the operation of the particular Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. From the contradictory nature of the submissions made
particularly in respect of the suggested probationary nature of
the workers initial employment the Court in view of the doubt
which exists in this regard, recommends that the worker concerned
be awarded a sum of two weeks salary in settlement of his claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
__________________________
7th November, 1989 Deputy Chairman.
B.O'N./J.C.