Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90672 Case Number: AD9143 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: CARELSONS LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. S.T. 113/90 concerning a claim by a worker that he was unfairly dismissed.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the oral and written submissions
of the parties concurs with the finding of the Rights Commissioner
that the claimant was unfairly dismissed.
The Court, however, in all the circumstances takes the view that
the claimant contributed to his dismissal.
Accordingly the Court is of the view that the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation as to payment be set aside, and that
the claimant should be paid one weeks gross pay by way of redress.
The Court so decides.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90672 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD4391
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: CARELSONS LIMITED
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. S.T. 113/90 concerning a claim by a worker
that he was unfairly dismissed.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is located in Tullamore, Co. Offaly and
manufactures specialist tents, awnings, and related products. It
employs approximately 10 workers. The worker concerned with the
dispute was involved in the preparation of an order for a
customer. Due to an error made by the particular worker the whole
order had to be reworked urgently in order to meet the customer's
deadline. Management called the workers together and asked them
to work overtime until 2 a.m. or 3 a.m. without pay to meet the
deadline. The Company claims that the worker concerned was
abusive when this request was made and his employment was
terminated after one weeks notice. The worker claims that he was
unfairly dismissed. The dispute was referred a Rights
Commissioner who investigated the matter on 28th September, 1990
and issued the following recommendation on 5th October, 1990:-
"RECOMMENDATION
Despite a number of side conferences with the parties it was
not possible to achieve an amicable settlement. In these
circumstances I must make a recommendation. I have to find
that the claimant was not afforded a proper opportunity to
offer a proper defence before the fact of dismissal.
Furthermore he was denied an opportunity of representation.
Clearly he was unfairly dismissed because he refused to work
overtime after 7.30 p.m. without payment. I therefore
recommend that he was unfairly dismissed. By way of redress,
I recommend that he receives 3 weeks net pay (3 x #74 = #222)
by way of severance pay."
The Company appealed against the recommendation under Section
13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Labour Court
heard the appeal in Tullamore on 23rd April, 1991.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker made some errors in the preparation of an order
for a customer. Management demanded that all employees work
overtime without pay on the order in question until 2 a.m. or
3 a.m. Originally all the employees collectively decided not
to comply with this demand. The workers were subsequently
approached by the Company on a individual basis and, with the
exception of the worker concerned and another worker, decided
to comply with the Company's demand. The worker concerned
offered to work until 7.30 p.m. without pay but this was
rejected by the Company.
2. The worker was employed by the Company for 10 months and
his attendance, work record and behaviour gave no cause for
complaint. He was unfairly dismissed because he refused to
give an open-ended commitment to work overtime without pay on
the reworking of the order in question.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has always stressed to the workers the need
for quality control. The worker had an important role in
producing quality products. Due to a serious error made by
the worker a whole customer order had to be repaired. When
the worker was asked to do overtime to repair the damage he
was abusive to management in front of the other workers. Such
an attitude could not be tolerated. The worker was therefore
given one week's notice.
2. The worker was not instantly dismissed. He had time
during his week's notice to show cause why he should not be
dismissed. He did not make any representations to the Company
for the retention of his employment.
3. The Company suffered a substantial loss on the order in
question from which it has not fully recovered in terms of
finance and customer goodwill.
DECISION:
5. The Court having considered the oral and written submissions
of the parties concurs with the finding of the Rights Commissioner
that the claimant was unfairly dismissed.
The Court, however, in all the circumstances takes the view that
the claimant contributed to his dismissal.
Accordingly the Court is of the view that the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation as to payment be set aside, and that
the claimant should be paid one weeks gross pay by way of redress.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
__________________________
30th May, 1991 Deputy Chairman.
A.S./J.C.