AD9175

Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91309 Case Number: AD9175 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: LEOPARDSTOWN INN - and - A WORKER

Subject:
Appeal by the worker against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. CW103/91 concerning alleged unfair dismissal.

Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties and noting
the Company's undertaking to give the claimant a favourable
reference the Court is of the view that the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation is fair and reasonable in the circumstances and
should be accepted by both parties.

The Court accordingly upholds the recommendation and rejects the
appeal and so decides.

Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Mr Devine

Text of Document__________________________________________________________________

CD91309 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD7591

THE LABOUR COURT

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969


PARTIES: LEOPARDSTOWN INN

AND

A WORKER


SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the worker against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. CW103/91 concerning alleged unfair dismissal.

BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company as
a pastry chef in September 1990. He worked from 11 a.m. to 4.00
p.m. six days a week and also agreed to work extra hours as
required. He was dismissed by Management on the 4th March, 1991
on the grounds that his work performance was unsatisfactory. He
claimed that his dismissal was unfair and referred the dispute to
a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation on the
30th April, 1991. On the 7th May, 1991 the Rights Commissioner
issued his recommendation as follows:

"I recommend that the Company offers to the worker a more
favourable reference and one week's wages and that he accepts
this in full and final settlement of the dispute".

(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation).

On the 18th June, 1991 the worker appealed the recommendation to
the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. A Court hearing was held on the 13th August, 1991.


WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker concerned, during his term of employment,
produced high class pastries. He got on well with his fellow
employees. The head chef, however, seemed to take a dislike
to the worker and did not appear to want his assistance.


2. The worker felt under pressure because of the
conflicting tastes of the restaurant owners with regard to
the type of cakes produced. After Christmas, 1990,
Management complained to the worker that cake sales were
down. The worker said that this was normal after Christmas.
However, sales did increase subsequently as a result of the
efforts of the worker.

3. In February, 1991, the worker attended his doctor and
was certified unfit for work for two weeks. When he returned
to work on Monday, 4th March, Management informed him that he
was being dismissed.

4. The worker was unfairly dismissed without having
received a written warning. He was not advised that his job
was in jeopardy and has been unemployed since March, 1991.
He feels that he is in this situation partly as a result of
the poor reference received from the Company (Details
supplied to the Court).


MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker concerned produced some excellent work during
his term of employment. However, there were times when he
made very little effort at all.

2. The worker asked to be given extra hours and, having
agreed to work these hours, would often fail to turn up.
Subsequently, the other chefs wanted nothing to do with him
because of his behaviour.

3. Management was keen that the worker should be
successful. He was accommodated by every member of staff
including the other chefs but invariably let them down.

4. The aim of Management was to provide customers with
fresh desserts daily, made in-house by the pastry chef. The
work of the worker concerned was not consistent with this
aim. The deficiencies in his work (Details supplied to the
Court) were pointed out to him on many occasions. He was
given many chances to prove himself but did not do so.

DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties and noting
the Company's undertaking to give the claimant a favourable
reference the Court is of the view that the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation is fair and reasonable in the circumstances and
should be accepted by both parties.

The Court accordingly upholds the recommendation and rejects the
appeal and so decides.
~


Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



23rd August, 1991 Evelyn Owens
T.O'D. / M.O'C. _______________
Deputy Chairman