Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90161 Case Number: LCR12866 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: BEAMISH AND CRAWFORD P.L.C. - and - A WORKER |
Claim by the worker concerning his alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having fully considered the written and oral
submissions of the parties and having regard to all the
circumstances of the lay-off, in particular the terms attached to
the agreement relating to casual employees, does not find that the
claimant was victimised in the manner in which he was laid-off and
not recalled. The Court notes however, the Company have
unequivocally confirmed the complainant was diligent , hard
working and carried out his work conscientiously.
Whilst making the above finding, the Court would have to say it is
not convinced the complainant, a casual employee who had
aspirations to full-time employment with the Company should the
opportunity arise, was provided with a climate in the workplace
which would assist him to qualify for permanent employment in the
event of it becoming available. Given that the claimant could be
held to have reasonable grounds for an expectation of permanent
employment with the Company at a future date the Court recommends
that the Company pay him #500 compensation for the fact that this
expectation cannot be now realised.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90161 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12866
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: BEAMISH AND CRAWFORD P.L.C.
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the worker concerning his alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was employed by the Company as a casual
temporary worker on 16th November, 1989. He was let go on 19th
January, 1990. The worker contends that at his interview for the
position he was informed that there as a strong possibility of
permanent employment. The worker maintains that initially he got
on well with his supervisor, the Transport Manager, however, this
changed when the worker declined to say anything derogatory about
other workers when prompted to do so by the Transport Manager.
The worker maintains that a bad atmosphere developed. The Company
operate on a last in-first out basis when laying-off casual
workers. The worker says that he was the first casual worker
employed but when he was let go a worker who was employed after
him was retained. The worker did not say anything about this at
the time as he hoped to be recalled. The worker subsequently
contacted the Company's Service Operations Director alleging that
he was let go and not recalled or considered for other positions
within the Company because of the Transport Manager's actions. A
meeting then took place between the Company and the worker's union
representatives following which the Company held an internal
inquiry. The Company rejected the worker's allegations of
victimisation. The worker on 1st April, 1990, referred the matter
to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation under
Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court
investigated the dispute on 2nd May, 1990.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker at all times carried out his job diligently.
There were a number of occasions during which there appeared
to be a tense atmosphere between the workers and the Transport
Manager but the worker concerned did not involve himself in
this. When he was asked by the Transport Manager to provide
information about a co-worker, the Manager did not like his
reply. Following this incident, the Manager's attitude to the
worker seemed to change.
2. On two occasions the Manager was abusive to the worker.
The worker did not react to these outbursts but got on with
his work to the best of his ability because he wished to be
recalled and hopefully get a permanent position.
3. The consensus among the other workers was that the worker
concerned had done a good job and that there was no valid
reason for him being let go and not recalled. The worker
believes his dignity and human rights have been violated. He
did not want any controversy, all he wanted was to keep his
dignity and to continue working.
4. The worker recently applied for another job with Buckley
Rent a Van. When asked for a reference the worker explained
that the Company had not yet forwarded his reference but that
Buckley Rent a Van could phone the Transport Manager for a
verbal reference. The Transport Manager refused to give a
verbal reference and as a result the worker did not get the
job. The worker finds it unacceptable that the injustice he
suffered in the Company should follow him into future
employment.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Due to the nature of its business, the Company regularly
hires casual temporary workers as provided for in a 1972
Company/Union Agreement. After nine weeks of temporary
employment, the Company decided to let the worker go as the
busy season had ended. At this point in time, all first
season casuals hired after the worker had already been laid
off as per Clause 4 of the 1972 Agreement which states:-
"First season casuals to be laid off in the order of last
in-first out."
2. The Company subsequently decided not to re-hire the worker
as it is entitled to under Clause 5 of the Agreement, which
states:- "There is no commitment by the Company to re-employ
any first seasons casual..." It was only after this decision
was communicated to the worker that the worker alleged
victimisation.
3. The worker's allegations were investigated by the Company
and discussed at a Company/Union meeting on 27th February,
1990. The worker's union accepted the Company's assertion
that there was no basis to the allegations and agreed not to
pursue the matter. When the Union representative refused to
pursue the matter, the worker place an unofficial picket on
the Company. All workers continued to work as normal and
ignored the picket.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having fully considered the written and oral
submissions of the parties and having regard to all the
circumstances of the lay-off, in particular the terms attached to
the agreement relating to casual employees, does not find that the
claimant was victimised in the manner in which he was laid-off and
not recalled. The Court notes however, the Company have
unequivocally confirmed the complainant was diligent , hard
working and carried out his work conscientiously.
Whilst making the above finding, the Court would have to say it is
not convinced the complainant, a casual employee who had
aspirations to full-time employment with the Company should the
opportunity arise, was provided with a climate in the workplace
which would assist him to qualify for permanent employment in the
event of it becoming available. Given that the claimant could be
held to have reasonable grounds for an expectation of permanent
employment with the Company at a future date the Court recommends
that the Company pay him #500 compensation for the fact that this
expectation cannot be now realised.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
___________________________
22nd May, 1990. Deputy Chairman
B.O'N/J.C.