Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91254 Case Number: LCR13331 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: P.C. ELECTRICAL - and - A WORKER |
Claim by the worker for compensation in respect of his alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court does not consider that sufficient grounds exist to warrant
payment of compensation to the worker concerned. The Court does
not therefore recommend concession of the worker's claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91254 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13331
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
PARTIES: P.C. ELECTRICAL
(Represented by Association of Electrical Contractors, Ireland)
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the worker for compensation in respect of his
alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company as
an electrician on the 31st August, 1990. He was advised by the
Company on the 18th December, 1990 that his employment was being
terminated on the 20th December, 1990. The worker stated to his
employer that he wished to finish work on the 18th December, 1990
and requested his P45 on that date. He was paid all monies due to
him including one week's pay in lieu of notice. The worker
claimed that his dismissal was unfair and referred the issue to a
Rights Commissioner for investigation under the Unfair Dismissals
Act, 1977. However, as the worker had less than the required
twelve months service with the Company, the claim could not
proceed under that Act. Subsequently the worker referred the
claim to a Rights Commissioner under the Industrial relations Acts
1946 - 1990 but the Company 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. A Court hearing was held
on the 6th June, 1991.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker concerned was given notice at 2 p.m. on the
18th December, 1990. Two other workers, one an electrician,
and one a labourer, were also to be let go. On the 2nd
January, 1991 the worker arrived at a site where the Company
had a contract. The electrician who was due to be dismissed
on the 18th December, 1990 was still in the Company's
employment. When the worker concerned questioned the
Employer he stated he was about to ring the worker to offer
him employment.
2. The reason the worker went to the site to see the
Employer was to question him about incorrect details on the
worker's P45. The worker also asked the Employer what the
justification was for employing the other worker in
preference to the worker concerned. The worker also
questioned the Employer as to when he would receive his
pension card in accordance with the Construction Industry
Federation regulations (C.I.F.). The worker only
subsequently received this card on the 12th March, 1991. The
Company had, in fact, only joined the C.I.F. pension scheme
in February 1991.
3. The worker concerned feels that he has been treated most
unfairly by the Employer. The Company had plenty of contract
work and could have offered to keep the employee at the site
where he was working on 18th December, 1990. Instead the
Company arbitrarily dismissed the worker. The worker is now
seeking compensation because of his unjust treatment by the
Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker concerned was employed by the Company
following an interview on the 31st August, 1990. He was
offered temporary work up to Christmas 1990 for a period of
four months.
2. On the 18th December, 1990 he was notified that his
employment would be terminated on the 20th December, 1990.
At this point the worker became aggressive and demanded to
finish work there and then. He demanded his P45 showing his
termination date as 18th December, 1990. The Company gave
the worker all monies due to him and he left the employment.
3. The worker was treated in accordance with the terms of
his engagement and accepted the termination by his request
for a P45 with immediate effect.
4. On the 2nd January, 1991 the worker concerned came onto
a site where the Company was working and he was asked by
Management if he wished to take up a position with the
Company as an electrician. He declined this offer.
5. In the electrical contracting trade this type of claim
should normally be handled through the process of the
N.J.I.C. (National Joint Industrial Council) disputes
procedure. The issue was raised at a recent meeting of the
Electrical N.J.I.C. and the Company was informed by the Union
(N.E.E.T.U.) that "no matter of dispute exists between this
Union on behalf of the worker concerned and P.C. Electrical".
6. The worker should have processed his claim in the manner
laid down in the Agreement and not on an individual
fragmented basis. Nevertheless, the Company contends that
the worker was given notice of termination of employment in
an orderly and correct manner in accordance with his
engagement on 31st August, 1990 and that no case can be made
to substantiate a claim for unfair dismissal.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court does not consider that sufficient grounds exist to warrant
payment of compensation to the worker concerned. The Court does
not therefore recommend concession of the worker's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
26th June, 1991 John O'Connell
T.O'D / M.O'C. _______________
Deputy Chairman