Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91105 Case Number: LCR13256 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: KASKS BAR/RESTAURANT - and - A WORKER |
Claim by the worker for compensation arising from her alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
7. Having considered the submissions from the parties and noting
that the claimant accepted an offer of alternative employment
which she subsequently did not take up finds no basis upon which
it could sustain a recommendation of compensation redress for
unfair dismissal.
The Court accordingly does not uphold the claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91105 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13256
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
PARTIES: KASKS BAR/RESTAURANT
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the worker for compensation arising from her alleged
unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was originally employed as a catering assistant
from the 4th August, 1989 and was later assigned as a first year
commis chef. Her duties consisted mainly of cleaning, food
service and food preparation, i.e. salads and sandwiches.
3. On the 4th July, 1990 the worker was informed by management
that she was no longer suitable as a comis chef and she was given
a weeks notice that her employment was being terminated. The
Company offered her a part-time job waiting and cleaning tables.
The worker rejected the Company's offer and her employment ceased.
4. The worker referred the issue to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. The Company declined an
invitation to attend a Rights Commissioner's investigation. The
worker then referred her case to the Labour Court under Section
20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The worker agreed to
be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Court hearing was held
on 1st March, 1991.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The manner in which the worker was dismissed is
unacceptable. The day she received her notice was the first
indication that there was any dissatisfaction about her work
performance. During the course of her employment the worker
was never late nor had she missed a days work due to illness.
2. The worker was very co-operative and on many occasions
worked her days off when requested to do so. In addition she
helped train in new staff - one of whom took her place when
she was dismissed. There was a frequent turn over of kitchen
staff and the worker was required to assist in training them.
She was very conversant with all aspects of her job i.e.
operating machinery, self-service counter, a la carte etc.
3. Two weeks prior to her dismissal the worker applied to
the College of Catering, for a place on a day release commis
chef course. A condition of acceptance on that course is
that one is employed in the catering industry. Management
had signed the relevant forms and still at that stage no
indication was given that her employment was about to end.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The worker was spoken to on a number of occasions by
management regarding her work performance. It was pointed
out that Management felt she was slow, bad at taking
direction and the on the job training she was given did not
seem to be sinking in. After these talks her work would
improve for a time. (Details supplied to the Court).
2. At a meeting held on 18th April, 1990 Management
discussed these points with her. The worker stated that she
had a real ambition to qualify as a chef and that she
intended to apply to the College of Catering for either full
time or day release courses. It was then decided to give her
a further eight to ten weeks to see if there would be any
improvement and she was advised that if things did not work
out she would be dismissed. The worker showed little or no
improvement in the weeks that followed and on the 4th July,
1990 she was informed accordingly. She was given the option
of leaving immediately with a weeks pay in lieu of notice or
working out her notice up to that Friday and then on the
following Monday commence working on the floor (waiting and
cleaning tables). Initially her hours would be between 15
and 25 hours a week and if things worked out in this area her
hours would be increased to 40. The worker opted for the
latter and agreed to be in work at 12 noon on the Monday.
However, she did not take up duty.
3. The Company offered the worker alternative employment as
the worker was a well mannered and pleasant girl who showed a
leaning towards customer relations. It is the Company's
policy to exhaust all options before going through the very
unpleasant task of dismissal. Under the circumstances the
Company considers that it acted in a fair and reasonable
manner in this case.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. Having considered the submissions from the parties and noting
that the claimant accepted an offer of alternative employment
which she subsequently did not take up finds no basis upon which
it could sustain a recommendation of compensation redress for
unfair dismissal.
The Court accordingly does not uphold the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
18th April, 1991 Evelyn Owens
M.D. / M.O'C. _______________
Deputy Chairman