Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89452 Case Number: AD8967 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: BEECH PARK GOLF CLUB - and - A WORKER |
Appeal by the worker against Rights Commissioners Recommendation No. CW/282/88 concerning compensation.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions from both parties
finds no basis for altering the Rights Commissioners
recommendation.
The Court accordingly upholds the recommendation and so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89452 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD6789
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: BEECH PARK GOLF CLUB
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the worker against Rights Commissioners
Recommendation No. CW/282/88 concerning compensation.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was appointed to the post of bar manager
and he commenced work on the 18th April, 1988. He was responsible
for purchases, goods inwards, cash, stock taking etc. During
subsequent stock takings serious discrepancies were discovered and
the Club Committee were not satisfied with the worker's
explanation for the deficits. The Club state that at a meeting
held on the 24th June, 1988, the worker was informed of the Club's
disquiet about his performance, as bar manager. The worker denies
that he received a warning at this meeting and claims the Club
were happy with his performance and that he was purely advised to
"tighten up" the stock control situation. On the 5th July, 1988
the worker was called to a meeting of the Club Committee and
invited to resign. He claims he was unfairly dismissed and
referred his case to a Rights Commissioner for investigation which
took place on the 2nd December, 1988. On the 19th December, 1988
the Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation as follows:-
"I recommend that the Club offers and the worker accepts the
sum of #600 in full and final settlement of this dispute and
that he is supplied with a suitable reference."
The worker was named in the Rights Commissioners Recommendation.
As the Company failed to implement the Recommendation the worker
appealed it to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Court hearing was held on the
21st September, 1989.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
1. On the 10th May, 1988 the Committee undertook a stock check
and stated that they were not satisfied with the result. They
were looking for a profit margin of 38% but the figure
achieved was 28%. At this stage all cheques and cash were
reconciled correctly.
2. The worker felt that the Committee were making a mess of
things and asked the advice of a friend of his in a stock
control firm on the stock taking matters concerned with the
Club. It subsequently transpired that the Club had engaged
the same firm. They did a stock check but the worker was only
made aware of this situation some time later.
3. The firm of stock taking experts subsequently did a second
stock check and the worker concerned produced all the relevant
books and documents for this check. The firm expressed
amazement in that they were not shown the books on the first
stock take. They found mistakes in some entries, and delivery
dockets missing, and stated that it was impossible to do a
correct stock check in such circumstances. This was not the
fault of the worker concerned as various people had access to
stock supplies.
4. At a meeting with the Club Committee on the 24th June the
worker was requested to "tighten up" the stock situation, as
there was too many people using the store room (it was also
used by outside caterers). The Committee agreed to erect a
cage in order to put stock under lock and key. There were
also a number of other key holders to the cage and the
Committee stated that they would have to change this
situation.
5. The worker was requested to do a stock take for the month
of June to be completed by 4th July, 1988. He arranged to
meet a Committee member on the 5th July to get the figures
necessary to balance the stock. Instead of this meeting
taking place the worker was asked to appear before the Club
Committee and asked to resign. He was told if he did not
resign he would be dismissed, and this is what subsequently
happened. The worker never agreed to leave the employment of
his own accord.
CLUB'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was appointed on the strength of his previous
bar experience and his statement that he would install a
comprehensive administrative system to control purchases,
goods inwards, cash and stock taking. The Club had no
previous experience of running a bar and were relying totally
on the worker's experience and expertise to ensure that the
bar would be run in an efficient manner and with profit levels
commensurate with those achieved in other similar golf clubs.
2. Stock taking and reconciliation of cash takings were
undertaken from an early stage by the Club's honorary
treasurer and members of the finance sub-Committee. Serious
discrepancies came to light which were not adequately
explained by the worker concerned. Three stock takers
revealed substantial shortages (details supplied to the
Court).
3. The Committee viewed this as a very serious situation
which could not be allowed to continue. A meeting was
arranged with the worker on the 24th June, 1988 and he was
informed of the Club's serious disquiet at his failure to
install the control systems (promised by him), and failure to
control bar staff drinking. He was also informed that the
Club had decided to employ a firm of professional stock takers
in view of the irregularities in bar stocks.
4. It was clearly stated to the worker that this situation
could not continue, and that it was his responsibility as bar
manager to control stocks and cash and that he was failing in
his duties and responsibilities. He was advised that if the
situation continued his employment would be terminated. He
offered no explanations at this meeting.
5. At a subsequent stock check by the professional stock
takers further discrepancies were discovered and the worker
concerned was unable to explain why this had occurred. The
Club Committee met the worker on 5th July, 1988 and at the
meeting he was asked to explain the discrepancies. He was
also informed that the goods inwards books had not been
written up nor the delivery of goods supervised.
6. In view of the warning given to the worker in June, the
continued discrepancies in stock, and his failure to follow
administrative procedures, he was asked for his resignation.
He stated that he was leaving in any event, and handed over
the keys and left the meeting. The Club's view is that the
worker concerned was not competent to carry out his duties as
bar manager. The Club would be failing in its
responsibilities to members were it not to take appropriate
action which culminated in the request for the worker's
resignation.
DECISION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions from both parties
finds no basis for altering the Rights Commissioners
recommendation.
The Court accordingly upholds the recommendation and so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
______________________
10th October, 1989 Deputy Chairman
T.O'D/J.C.