Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90170 Case Number: LCR12885 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: JORDAN ST. CLAIR - and - A WORKER |
Claim by the worker for compensation as a result of his alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
8. Having heard the submissions of the parties the Court does not
find the dismissal of the claimant was unfair.
The Court so decides.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90170 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12885
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: JORDAN ST. CLAIR
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the worker for compensation as a result of his
alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was appointed following interview, as
Salon Manager/Colourist and Stylist on 26th September, 1989. He
was informed that he would be responsible for the day to day
management of the salon, selection, recruitment, training and
motivation of staff, stock control, liaison with suppliers and the
promotion of the salon and the generation of new business and
clients.
3. The worker was further informed that the proprietors had no
previous experience in hairdressing and that their business
expertise lay elsewhere. He was also required to report to the
proprietors on all matters not connected with the actual skill of
hairdressing. The worker sought a contract of employment before
starting work and he was informed that this would be forthcoming.
Six weeks after he started work his employers handed him a
document which set out his conditions of employment, wages, hours
of work, use of van etc. The document also stated that he would
initially be employed for a probationary period of 3 months. The
worker pointed out that there was no mention of a probationary
period at the interview. He did not sign the document and as no
further action was taken on his part it was assumed by the
Employer that the conditions of employment were acceptable to him.
4. Two weeks prior to the salon opening he was requested to
recruit a stylist and a junior. This the worker did. The salon
opened for business on 26th September, 1989. The worker was
employed up to 25th January, 1990 when he was suspended.
Following a meeting between him and his employer on 29th January,
1990 his employment was terminated and all monies due paid to him.
His P.45 was subsequently given to him at a later date. The
Employer gave the reasons for dismissal as incompetence due to the
number of complaints regarding his work, misrepresenting the wages
the stylist he hired was earning in his previous employment and
withholding information on his C.V.
5. The worker referred his case to a Rights Commissioner. The
Employer was not agreeable to a Rights Commissioner's
investigation. The worker then referred his case to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation under Section 20(1) of
the Industrial Relations Act, 1946. The worker agreed to be bound
by the Courts recommendation. A Court hearing was held on 16th
May, 1990.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The worker carried out his duties as required and always
gave his all and sometimes more. His commitment to the
Company was second to none. The salon started business at
9.30 a.m. He started work at 8.30 to 8.45 a.m. to organise
the cleaing of the salon. He stayed late in the evenings to
do the cash.
2. There were a number complaints regarding workmanship.
These were of a relatively minor nature (slight colour and
tone alterations) which were easily rectified. There were
never any major complaints.
3. The Employer stated that the worker misled them regarding
the wages of the stylist he hired was in receipt of in his
employment. When the worker met the stylist he asked him what
wages he was in receipt of. The stylist replied that he was
previous on #40 to #45 a week and had to supplement this by
working two evenings elsewhere. The worker offered him #100 a
week to counter any offer which his employer might make. This
proved successful and he was able to secure the stylist. He
did not inform his Employer of the stylist's previous wage as
they needed a stylist and it was just one week before the shop
opened. Indeed the stylist's previous earnings were on his
P.45 which he handed in on commencing employment. The worker
did not hide anything. His main interest was to secure a good
stylist before the shop opened.
4. The worker omitted to mention on his C.V. that he had a
23% shareholding in a company which he previously managed. He
did not enter this fact on his C.V. as he did not think it
relevant as he has had no interest in the company for some
time now.
5. The worker has since secured alternative employment. Some
of his former clients at Jordan St. Clair have followed him to
his present place of employment.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The salon received a number of complaints specifically in
connection with the worker which raised questions as to his
competence and capability for performing work in the areas he
proposed to be fully qualified. A list of complaints were
kept from 20th October, 1989 onwards (details supplied to the
Court). All remedial work was carried out at the expense of
the salon. The worker was spoken to in this regard and it was
explained to him that his mistakes were actually costing the
salon money. The discussion also involved the volume of
business to-date and targets (which the worker agreed were
realistic) were set. However the complaints continued. The
Employer was not satisfied with the worker's explanation on
same (details supplied to the Court).
2. In the week commencing the 23rd January, 1990 the Employer
discovered that the stylist was earning #45 a week in his
previous employment. The worker concerned had stated that the
stylist was earning #110 a week and that it would take #145 a
week to secure his employment. The worker's explanation
surrounding the stylist's recruitment was vague. In view of
the foregoing, the continuing list of complaints and other
matters regarding his C.V. (details supplied to the Court) the
Employer lost all confidence and trust in the worker as
manager of their salon and were left with no alternative but
to terminate his employment.
RECOMMENDATION:
8. Having heard the submissions of the parties the Court does not
find the dismissal of the claimant was unfair.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
_______________________
29th May, 1990. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.