Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91235 Case Number: LCR13318 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: HARRIS TRUCK CENTRE - and - A WORKER |
Claim by a worker for compensation for alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
4. The Court notes that the Company did not respond to the
invitation to attend the Court hearing and submitted a short
statement. Having considered the submission from the claimant the
Court is satisfied that he was treated unfairly and accordingly
recommends that he be paid
(a) the amount of commission due i.e. #7,500
(b) a further amount of #500 as compensation for the unfair
treatment.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91235 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13318
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
PARTIES: HARRIS TRUCK CENTRE
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by a worker for compensation for alleged unfair
dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company as
a truck salesman on the 19th August, 1990 on a three month
probationary period. He did not receive a written contract of
employment but made a verbal agreement with the Managing Director
that he would receive #160 p.w. plus car/petrol and commission of
20% on his sales. These terms were agreed and it was also agreed
that any tax, PRSI and other deductions would be paid separately
by the Company. The worker was also informed by the Managing
Director that any commission earned through selling vehicles
belonging to a sister company, Joe Harris Commercials, would be
paid to the worker. He was informed that his duties were to
concentrate on generating new business by canvassing factories and
companies in the nearby industrial estates but he was given no
specific territory to cover. The worker was dismissed by the
Company some sixteen weeks after he commenced employment. He
claimed compensation for unfair dismissal and loss of earnings and
requested that the issue be investigated by a Rights Commissioner.
The Company, however, objected to such an investigation. The
worker then referred the dispute to the Labour Court under Section
20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 and agreed to be bound
by the Court's recommendation. The Company declined to attend the
hearing but by letter to the Court dated 27th May, 1990 stated
that the worker had been dismissed because he failed to achieve a
satisfactory level and quality of sales targets. A Court hearing
was held on the 29th May, 1991.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker concerned has had extensive experience as a
salesman and has worked successfully for various companies
(Details supplied to the Court). He found, however, in
relation to this Company, that having hired him to sell
trucks, there seemed to be a concerted effort on the part of
Management to make it almost impossible for him to carry out
his duties in a professional manner.
2. On his first day at work the sales manager instructed
the receptionist to give no sales calls to the worker
concerned. (The worker was subsequently informed of this by
a former employee of the Company). The service manager
manned the telephones during lunch-time and from 5.00 p.m. to
7.00 p.m. and claimed that he was quite capable of making
sales. During the worker's entire period of employment he
received only four calls - these were passed on to him in the
absence of the sales and service managers.
3. The worker experienced great difficulty in trying to
operate as a salesman because of the behaviour of his
immediate supervisors and because of the lack of interest of
the Managing Director in the worker's predicament. There
were quite a number of instances, (details supplied to the
Court), where various sales transactions which were initiated
by the worker concerned were completed by other sales
personnel. Nevertheless the worker was as successful at his
job as his co-workers. (Details of the worker's sales
transactions supplied to the Court).
4. The sales manager was doing everything possible to stop
the worker concerned selling trucks and the service manager
held up delivery when the worker did effect a sale. In one
instance a customer who purchased a truck and made his first
finance payment, did not take delivery of his vehicle for a
total of six weeks from the date of signing finance papers.
5. The Company car which had been given to the worker was
sold by Management five weeks after the worker commenced
employment. He was then given a van with a broken headlight
and when he complained about this Management gave him a
non-commital and jocular reply.
6. On his last day at work he received #1,500 from the
Company accountant. The worker's total profit made for the
Company however was #45,500 for vehicles sold for both Harris
Truck Centre and Joe Harris Commercials. He is claiming
compensation for unfair dismissal and loss of earnings and
commission of 20% on profits earned by him for the Company,
less the #1,500 he has already received.
RECOMMENDATION:
4. The Court notes that the Company did not respond to the
invitation to attend the Court hearing and submitted a short
statement. Having considered the submission from the claimant the
Court is satisfied that he was treated unfairly and accordingly
recommends that he be paid
(a) the amount of commission due i.e. #7,500
(b) a further amount of #500 as compensation for the unfair
treatment.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
18th June, 1991 Evelyn Owens
T.O'D / M.O'C. _______________
Deputy Chairman