Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90103 Case Number: AD9015 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: CASTLE CURTAINS AND BLINDS LIMITED - and - A WORKER;HANAHOE AND HANAHOE SOLICITORS |
Appeal by a worker against Rights Commissioner's recommendation B.C. 112/89 concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions of both parties the Court is
of the opinion that the Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner
is correct and should stand. The Court so decides.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90103 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD1590
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: CASTLE CURTAINS AND BLINDS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY O'MARA AND COMPANY SOLICITORS)
and
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY HANAHOE AND HANAHOE SOLICITORS)
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by a worker against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation B.C. 112/89 concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker maintains that he was employed by the Company on
the understanding that it would be in a permanent capacity.
However, on 10th April, 1989, after approximately 5 months
employment he was dismissed without notice. The worker did not
receive any pay in lieu of notice. The matter was referred to a
Rights Commissioner for investigation. The Rights Commissioner
issued the following recommendation.
"I am satisfied that the worker was unfairly dismissed from
his employment by his employer. I am also of the view that
both parties could have dealt more sensibly with the matter.
I do not recommend re-instatement. My recommendation is that
Castle Curtains and Blinds Limited should pay to the worker
the sum of #600 and that this be accepted by him in full and
final settlement of all claims on the Company in relation to
the termination of his employment."
(Both the worker and his employer were named in the
recommendation).
The Rights Commissioner's recommendation was unacceptable to the
worker, who appealed it on 20th September, 1989 to the Labour
Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
The Court heard the appeal on 16th October, 1989. The employer
was not represented at the appeal. The Court issued a Decision on
the case (Ref No. AD75/89) which stated as follows: "The Court in
the absence of representations from the employer is of the opinion
that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation should stand."
Subsequently the employer informed the Court that the Company did
not receive notification of the date of the appeal hearing and it
was for this reason that the Company was not represented. In view
of the circumstances the Court decided to reconvene the hearing.
The Court reheard the appeal on 2nd March, 1990.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker concerned gave up permanent employment with
another firm in order to work for the Company. It was
understood that this position would be permanent. The Company
promised the worker that he would be informed about any
expenses that might arise should he be sent out to assist on a
fitting job. The Company failed to do this.
2. On Friday, 7th April, 1989, the worker was requested to
work on site at Beaumont Hospital for one week commencing on
Monday 10th April, 1989. The Company informed him that the
fitter would fill him in on the details. When he heard the
details it was apparent that not only would he not have
sufficient equipment to carry out the job but also no
provision had been made for the expenses he would incur by
working on site.
3. The worker was unable to contact his employer until Sunday
evening to discuss the situation. When he did contact the
employer, the employer refused to meet him at the Company
premises the following morning. When the worker attended at
the Company premises the following morning he was informed by
the employer that another worker had been sent to Beaumont
Hospital. He was also informed that there was no work for him
and he was requested to leave.
4. The Company failed to provide the worker with the
necessary equipment to enable him to do his work. The Company
did not provide him with a reference nor did he receive any
payment in lieu of notice. Subsequent to the issuing of the
Rights Commissioner's recommendation the Company did pay him
#164.20 which was the equivalent of one weeks pay. The worker
contends that the compensation recommended by the Rights
Commissioner should be increased.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. On 7th April, 1989, the Company received an urgent request
from Beaumont Hospital, one of its most important customers,
to carry out immediate maintenance. It was important that the
Company be able to carry out this work as the Company had a
maintenance contract with the hospital. In view of the fact
that the fitting schedules had already been planned for the
week commencing Monday, 10th April, 1989, and no fitter would
be available, it was essential that the Company use somebody
from the factory to do the work in question.
2. The worker concerned was familiar with the blinds
requiring maintenance and had worked on site before. Indeed
on 7th April, 1989, he was engaged in an on site job at St.
Patrick's Hospital, Dublin. The worker agreed to undertake
the work in Beaumont Hospital for the week and one of the
fitters explained the standard procedure to him. On Saturday,
8th April, 1989 the fitter went to the hospital and left the
necessary tools for the worker concerned.
3. On Sunday 9th April, 1989, the worker phoned the employer
regarding the agreed work, tools and expenses. The employer
explained that it was essential that the worker be in Beaumont
Hospital at 9.00 a.m. on Monday, 10th April, 1989, and that
all his expenses would be met by the Company. The employer
also said that he would also go to the Hospital on the Monday
morning and talk to the worker about his concerns. However,
the worker declined to attend at the hospital.
4. As a result of the worker's actions work schedules had to
be re-arranged so somebody could go to the hospital. Several
customers were let down and business was lost. The Company's
relationship with customers was put in jeopardy and it took
months to regain their confidence in the Company.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions of both parties the Court is
of the opinion that the Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner
is correct and should stand. The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_____________________________
23rd April, 1990 Deputy Chairman.
B.O'N./J.C.