Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9191 Case Number: AD9126 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: MR LIAM WALSH - and - A WORKER |
Appeal by a worker against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. B.C. 297/90.
Recommendation:
6. The Court having considered the submissions of the parties
oral and written finds no grounds to amend the recommendation of
the Rights Commissioner except in so far as the amount of
compensation is concerned which the Court finds should be an
amount of #500.
The Court so decides.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9191 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD2691
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: MR LIAM WALSH
T/A LAUREL STORES
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by a worker against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. B.C. 297/90.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment in the shop on 7th
May, 1990. Her work involved checkout duties and bagging fruit
and packing shelves. Her daily working hours were 9.00 a.m. to
6.30 p.m. and on a Friday from 9.00 a.m. to 8.00 p.m. The worker
received a morning tea break and an hour's lunch break and on
Fridays an afternoon tea break also applied. On 5th November,
1990 when the worker reported for work she was informed by the
owner of the shop that she was being dismissed due to her bad
time-keeping. (The worker received one week's pay in lieu of
notice). The worker objected to this on the basis that the
dismissal was unfair and she had never been given any warning to
suggest her job was at risk. The worker subsequently referred the
matter to the Rights Commissioner's service for investigation and
recommendation. A Rights Commissioner investigated the dispute on
11th January, 1991 (the Company did not attend the hearing) and
issued the following recommendation on the 17th January, 1991 -
"In the light of the above and having found that the dismissal
was in all circumstances unfair I recommend that Liam Walsh
pay to the worker the sum of #700 and that this be accepted
by her in full and final settlement of all claims on the
employer in relation to the termination of her employment."
(the worker was referred to by name in the recommendation).
3. On 28th January, 1991 the worker appealed the recommendation
to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on 11th March,
1991.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. On 5th November, 1990 the worker was sitting outside the
shop talking to a new girl who was starting work that day.
When the worker went in to start work the owner asked her to
go down to his office. The owner then told her that he was
letting her go as her timekeeping was terrible. The owner was
very abrupt with the worker and told her to leave and not to
work for the rest of the day although he knew that the bus
which the worker used was very irregular as it is only a
feeder service. The worker was very distressed at being
dismissed. The owner had never given her any type of warning
to say that her job was in jeopardy.
2. In relation to a person taking goods from the shop without
paying, on a number of occasions a man from a nearby company
came to the worker when she was busy with other customers and
said he would pay her later which he did. The owner's sister
discussed this with the worker at least a month or more before
her dismissal and not just before the dismissal. However, the
person taking goods and paying later would have done so before
the worker concerned could stop him, although she did have a
word with him about this and told him not to do it again.
When the worker was dismissed she asked the owner if there
were any other reasons besides the timekeeping which he had
stated and he told her there was not. The worker is appealing
the recommendation as she feels it is inadequate in relation
to compensation as it does not take into account the fact that
she was not given any warning to say she was losing her job.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. When the worker was employed she knew she had to get a bus
to work. The owner asked her if she would be able to get to
work on time. The worker gave an assurance that she could and
it was on this basis that she was employed. The worker's
timekeeping and performance was good for the first three
months, however, during the next three months the worker's
timekeeping deteriorated. The worker's timekeeping was
particularly bad on Saturday mornings a time when the shop is
very busy and during September, 1990 she was late for work
three Saturdays in a row.
2. In addition, it was brought to the owner's attention that
the worker was allowing a man who worked in a nearby company
to leave the shop without paying for items. It is not
satisfactory to have a worker in employment who allows people
to take goods without paying for them and this could not be
overlooked. Therefore, in addition to the worker's bad
timekeeping there was a breakdown in trust at the checkout.
In all the circumstances the dismissal was fair and
reasonable.
DECISION:
6. The Court having considered the submissions of the parties
oral and written finds no grounds to amend the recommendation of
the Rights Commissioner except in so far as the amount of
compensation is concerned which the Court finds should be an
amount of #500.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
_________________________
21st March, 1991. Deputy Chairman
U.M./J.C.