Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91191 Case Number: LCR13284 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: JAPAN - and - A WORKER |
Dispute concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from both parties the Court
is satisfied that the claimant was not given fair treatment and
accordingly the Court recommends that
(a) the claimant be given an appropriate reference
and
(b) he be paid a sum of #134 gross.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91191 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13284
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
PARTIES: JAPAN
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company as
a security guard at one of its boutiques in Henry Street, Dublin
on the 6th March, 1990. He was dismissed on the 1st March, 1991.
He claimed that his dismissal was unfair and requested that the
issue be referred to a Right's Commissioner for investigation,
however the Company rejected his claim and objected to such an
investigation. On the 12th March, 1991 the worker referred the
dispute to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation
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 2nd May, 1991.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. On Saturday, 23rd February, 1991 at 5.55 p.m. the
Manager of the boutique called the worker concerned into the
office and advised him that he was being given one weeks
notice. The worker questioned the Manager as to why he was
being dismissed. The Manager replied that he did not have to
give the worker a reason. The Manager claimed that having
discussed the issue with the boutique owner previously, they
both decided that the worker should be dismissed.
2. The worker concerned had spoken to the owner earlier
on the day in question and the owner never intimated that
anything was amiss. There was no indication of an impending
dismissal. The worker had no option but to accept the week's
notice and week's wages. A request by the worker to work his
week's notice was refused. The worker then left the
premises.
3. The Company has acted in an unfair and arbitrary fashion
in dismissing the worker. His character has been taken away.
He cannot apply for another job as he does not know the
reasons for his dismissal, neither has he received a
reference. He is anxious to pursue a career in the security
industry but will find it very difficult because of the
circumstances of his dismissal.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker concerned gave less than satisfactory service
to the Company during his period of employment. He was a bad
time keeper and was spoken to by the Manager in relation to
this issue.
2. He failed to carry out his duties as a security guard in
an efficient manner and in particular on the 16th November,
2nd, 10th, 15th and 20th December, 1990. On these occasions
security tags were deliberately removed from garments.
(Details supplied to the Court).
3. The worker ignored an instruction from the Manager
always to watch customers in the shop. Instead he stood at
the entrance with his back to the customers, and either read
a newspaper or chatted to the assistant.
4. The worker reported through a friend that he was very
ill and unfit for work on the 4th February, 1991 and on the
5th February, 1991 arrived for work at about 9.45 a.m. In
the meantime the Manager had hired a cover security guard on
the assumption that the worker concerned was ill. The worker
then took the rest of the week off and sent in a doctor's
certificate stating that he would be out of work for seven
days.
5. The Company feels that the incidents referred to
amounted to a breach of contract by the worker and Management
was justified in dismissing him.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions from both parties the Court
is satisfied that the claimant was not given fair treatment and
accordingly the Court recommends that
(a) the claimant be given an appropriate reference
and
(b) he be paid a sum of #134 gross.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
17th May, 1991 Evelyn Owens
T.O'D. / M.O'C. _______________
Deputy Chairman