Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89547 Case Number: AD8971 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: IRISH CONSERVATORIES LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Appeal by a worker against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. CW131/89 concerning alleged underpayment and unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
"Findings
There are many contradictory statements in the submissions by
the parties. These I cannot reconcile, and there is little
written evidence to help. It appears that the worker was
given notice of his dismissal well in advance but this was
brought forward because of the refusal to work overtime.
Recommendation
I recommend that the Company offers and the worker accepts
the sum of #150 in settlement of this dispute."
(The worker was mentioned by name in the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation).
The Rights Commissioner's recommendation was rejected by the
worker who appealed it, on 2nd August, 1989, to the Labour Court
under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The
Court heard the appeal on 26th September, 1989.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker, from the outset, was not happy with the wages
and complained to the Company. He was told that things would
be fixed up, however, this failed to happen. As a result of
not being paid correctly he is owed approximately #1,000.
2. The worker refused to do any overtime until he was paid
the proper agreed wage. As a result of asking for what had
been agreed, he was let go. The worker believes he was
unfairly dismissed.
3. The worker requested the Company to provide him with his
notice in writing and a letter stating the period he had
worked for the Company. The Company did not provide these.
4. The Company has alleged that the worker's work was not up
to standard, that he had no qualifications or tools, had
accepted money into the hand for jobs and that he took
time-off to play football. The Company has further alleged
that the worker was given written warnings concerning his poor
workmanship. This is refuted by the worker. At no stage did
he sign for any letters of warning nor did he accept any money
into the hand as alleged. The worker holds a National Craft
Certificate as a carpenter/joiner and possesses a full tool
kit. Since a road accident in 1987, the worker has been
unable to take part in the majority of sports.
5. The worker is entitled to payment of all the monies owed
to him. He should also receive an ex gratia payment in
respect of allegations made against him.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. When the worker was employed a basic wage was agreed.
This wage was to apply irrespective of weather or hours worked
in any day. There was no discussions concerning tool money,
travel, or meal expenses.
2. The only time the question of extra payment was raised was
in relation to a job in Sligo. Extra payment was given in
respect of this job.
3. The worker along with others in the workforce, was
informed of the Company's dissatisfaction with his standard of
work and about drinking during lunch time. The other workers
improved but the worker concerned did not appear to make any
improvement. Indeed, it appeared to the Company that he was
also hostile and unco-operative with customers.
4. The Company felt the worker's refusal to work any overtime
was the final straw and decided it had no option but to
terminate his employment. He was given his notice with his
pay cheque.
DECISION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, takes the view that the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation is appropriate to the situation as far as it can be
ascertained. The Court so decides.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Shiel Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89547 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD7189
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: IRISH CONSERVATORIES LIMITED
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by a worker against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. CW131/89 concerning alleged underpayment and
unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned claims that when he was employed by the
Company on 14th February, 1989, it was agreed that he would
receive full carpenters' rates plus the usual expenses such as
meals, travel and tool money. On average the worker claims he
worked an hour a day overtime and a half day on Saturdays. The
worker received a basic wage of #150 per week. He received no
overtime payments and no meal, tool or travel money. The worker
was dismissed after 12 weeks employment. The worker maintains
that his dismissal was because he refused to work overtime. The
worker further claims that he had not been paid as agreed and that
#1,100 is owed to him. The Company rejected the claim saying that
the worker had been employed on probation at #100 per week
fallback pay (or job price if attained). The matter was referred
to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. On 20th July, 1989,
the Rights Commissioner issued the following findings and
recommendation:
"Findings
There are many contradictory statements in the submissions by
the parties. These I cannot reconcile, and there is little
written evidence to help. It appears that the worker was
given notice of his dismissal well in advance but this was
brought forward because of the refusal to work overtime.
Recommendation
I recommend that the Company offers and the worker accepts
the sum of #150 in settlement of this dispute."
(The worker was mentioned by name in the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation).
The Rights Commissioner's recommendation was rejected by the
worker who appealed it, on 2nd August, 1989, to the Labour Court
under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The
Court heard the appeal on 26th September, 1989.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker, from the outset, was not happy with the wages
and complained to the Company. He was told that things would
be fixed up, however, this failed to happen. As a result of
not being paid correctly he is owed approximately #1,000.
2. The worker refused to do any overtime until he was paid
the proper agreed wage. As a result of asking for what had
been agreed, he was let go. The worker believes he was
unfairly dismissed.
3. The worker requested the Company to provide him with his
notice in writing and a letter stating the period he had
worked for the Company. The Company did not provide these.
4. The Company has alleged that the worker's work was not up
to standard, that he had no qualifications or tools, had
accepted money into the hand for jobs and that he took
time-off to play football. The Company has further alleged
that the worker was given written warnings concerning his poor
workmanship. This is refuted by the worker. At no stage did
he sign for any letters of warning nor did he accept any money
into the hand as alleged. The worker holds a National Craft
Certificate as a carpenter/joiner and possesses a full tool
kit. Since a road accident in 1987, the worker has been
unable to take part in the majority of sports.
5. The worker is entitled to payment of all the monies owed
to him. He should also receive an ex gratia payment in
respect of allegations made against him.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. When the worker was employed a basic wage was agreed.
This wage was to apply irrespective of weather or hours worked
in any day. There was no discussions concerning tool money,
travel, or meal expenses.
2. The only time the question of extra payment was raised was
in relation to a job in Sligo. Extra payment was given in
respect of this job.
3. The worker along with others in the workforce, was
informed of the Company's dissatisfaction with his standard of
work and about drinking during lunch time. The other workers
improved but the worker concerned did not appear to make any
improvement. Indeed, it appeared to the Company that he was
also hostile and unco-operative with customers.
4. The Company felt the worker's refusal to work any overtime
was the final straw and decided it had no option but to
terminate his employment. He was given his notice with his
pay cheque.
DECISION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, takes the view that the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation is appropriate to the situation as far as it can be
ascertained. The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
________________________
20th October, 1989. Deputy Chairman
B.O'N/J.C.