Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91386 Case Number: AD9188 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: HITECH PLATING LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Appeal by a worker against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. BC155/91 concerning his alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
In the light of the above I must hold that the worker was
unfairly dismissed from his employment on the date in
question. I do not recommend reinstatement since he has now
embarked upon a new career. In determining a level of
compensation I am influenced by the fact that he did
contribute his own difficulties by his attitude and also by
the fact that he has now embarked upon a new business
venture.
My recommendation is that Hi-tec Plating should pay to the
worker the sum of £500 and that this be accepted by him in
full and final settlement of all claims on the Company in
relation to the termination of his employment".
(The worker was referred to by name in the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation).
The worker rejected the Recommendation and on 25th July, 1991,
appealed it to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on
10th September, 1991.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker believes that his dismissal was totally
unfair. During the period of his employment he was never
given any warnings concerning the quality of his work. The
worker did have a verbal disagreement with the Production
Manager, but other workers have in the past been dismissed
for behaviour that was far worse and subsequently
re-instated. The worker asked to be re-instated but the
Company refused. The worker contends that he was victimised.
2. The conditions under which he had to work were neither
safe nor reliable. When working live plating tanks he would
sometimes be given an electric shock, yet his requests for
electrical repairs were ignored.
3. The worker believes that the Right Commissioner's
Recommendation is fair in its comments but that the actual
settlement sum of £500 that is recommended is inadequate
given his monthly earnings of £850 net while employed by the
Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker concerned was dismissed for his unacceptable
behaviour and attitude. He had been verbally cautioned on a
number of occasions (details provided). On 4th April, 1991,
he was dismissed due to continuing insubordination,
misconduct and abusiveness to the Production Manager.
2. Following the dismissal the worker spoke to the Managing
Director of the Company and during this conversation he
made derogatory remarks about the Production Manager, said
that he could never work with him again and that he did not
want his job back anyway.
3. In the past, when the worker was reprimanded over his
attitude and performance, he openly stated that he cared
little for his job anyway, because he could always get
alternative work with a courier firm. The Company
understands he has since taken up work as a van driver for a
courier firm.
DECISION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties and
finds the Company at no time formally advised the complainant of
the consequence of his actions or attitude.
Consequently the Court concurs with the recommendation of the
Rights Commissioner that he was unfairly dismissed.
The Court however considers the complainant in no small measure
contributed to circumstances which led to his dismissal and
accordingly finds no grounds to amend the award made by the Rights
Commissioner.
The Court so decides.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91386 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD8891
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
PARTIES: HITECH PLATING LIMITED
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by a worker against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. BC155/91 concerning his alleged unfair
dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company on
23rd September, 1989, and was dismissed on 4th April, 1991. The
Company contended that his dismissal resulted from his
unacceptable behaviour and attitude. The worker believed he was
unfairly dismissed and referred the matter to a Rights
Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On 9th July,
1991, the Rights Commissioner issued the following findings and
recommendation.
"FINDINGS
Having investigated the matter and having given full and
careful consideration to the points made by both parties I
have come to the following conclusions:
1. I am satisfied that the worker was dismissed on account
of his refusal to return to this old job - plating -
2. I am also satisfied that the reason for his refusal was
related to difficulties experienced in pushing the
transporter.
3. I am also satisfied that his attitude was not helpful
either to the Company or to himself.
RECOMMENDATION
In the light of the above I must hold that the worker was
unfairly dismissed from his employment on the date in
question. I do not recommend reinstatement since he has now
embarked upon a new career. In determining a level of
compensation I am influenced by the fact that he did
contribute his own difficulties by his attitude and also by
the fact that he has now embarked upon a new business
venture.
My recommendation is that Hi-tec Plating should pay to the
worker the sum of £500 and that this be accepted by him in
full and final settlement of all claims on the Company in
relation to the termination of his employment".
(The worker was referred to by name in the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation).
The worker rejected the Recommendation and on 25th July, 1991,
appealed it to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on
10th September, 1991.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker believes that his dismissal was totally
unfair. During the period of his employment he was never
given any warnings concerning the quality of his work. The
worker did have a verbal disagreement with the Production
Manager, but other workers have in the past been dismissed
for behaviour that was far worse and subsequently
re-instated. The worker asked to be re-instated but the
Company refused. The worker contends that he was victimised.
2. The conditions under which he had to work were neither
safe nor reliable. When working live plating tanks he would
sometimes be given an electric shock, yet his requests for
electrical repairs were ignored.
3. The worker believes that the Right Commissioner's
Recommendation is fair in its comments but that the actual
settlement sum of £500 that is recommended is inadequate
given his monthly earnings of £850 net while employed by the
Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker concerned was dismissed for his unacceptable
behaviour and attitude. He had been verbally cautioned on a
number of occasions (details provided). On 4th April, 1991,
he was dismissed due to continuing insubordination,
misconduct and abusiveness to the Production Manager.
2. Following the dismissal the worker spoke to the Managing
Director of the Company and during this conversation he
made derogatory remarks about the Production Manager, said
that he could never work with him again and that he did not
want his job back anyway.
3. In the past, when the worker was reprimanded over his
attitude and performance, he openly stated that he cared
little for his job anyway, because he could always get
alternative work with a courier firm. The Company
understands he has since taken up work as a van driver for a
courier firm.
DECISION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties and
finds the Company at no time formally advised the complainant of
the consequence of his actions or attitude.
Consequently the Court concurs with the recommendation of the
Rights Commissioner that he was unfairly dismissed.
The Court however considers the complainant in no small measure
contributed to circumstances which led to his dismissal and
accordingly finds no grounds to amend the award made by the Rights
Commissioner.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
____________________
25th October, 1991
B.O'N. / M.O'C. Deputy Chairman