Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91448 Case Number: AD9190 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: ANN'S HOT BREAD SHOP - and - A WORKER |
Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. BC135/91 concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
4. The Court has fully considered all aspects of the submissions
oral and written and finds no grounds to alter the recommendation
of the Rights Commissioner.
The Court so decides.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91448 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD9091
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: ANN'S HOT BREAD SHOP
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. BC135/91 concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was employed by the Company as a bakery
worker. On the morning in question, 26th March, 1991, he had to
leave the premises to purchase items for the cake shop which the
Company run as part of the bakery. On his return the owner of the
bakery accused him of not doing his work. He tried to explain the
reasons why he had fallen behind in his work but the owner made
derogatory remarks and told him he was giving him a week's notice.
In the afternoon the worker attended bakery classes at the College
of Technology, Kevin Street. On the advice of his teacher he
reported for work on the 27th March, 1991, starting at 5.30 a.m.
At about 8 a.m. he went to see the owner of the bakery and
following a disagreement concerning the events of the previous
day, he was told to leave the premises. The matter was referred
to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation.
The Rights Commissioner on 28th June, 1991, recommended as
follows:-
"In the light of the above I uphold the claim of the worker
that he was unfairly dismissed and I recommend that the
Company should pay to the worker the sum of £100 and that
this be accepted by him in full and final settlement of all
claims on the Company."
The Rights Commissioner's recommendation was rejected by the
Company who appealed the matter to the Labour Court. The Court
heard the appeal on 3rd October, 1991.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company did not dismiss the worker. The owner of the
bakery has only dismissed 2 people in 30 years.
2. The worker was a trusted member of the staff but on the
day in question he shouted abuse at the owner in front of
customers. In the past the worker had verbally abused female
workers employed in the cake shop.
3. The worker claims he was distressed after the incident but
2 days later he was able to start in a new job.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker's duties on the morning in question were making
cream cakes for the cake shop. It was Easter time and the
shop was busy. The boss's son asked him to do some errands.
When he returned to the bakery he had fallen behind in his
work and found that the shop was out of cream cakes. He was
preparing cakes for the shop when the incident with the owner
of the bakery occurred.
2. Although he had started work at 5.30 a.m. he had not had
the opportunity to take a break because of pressure of work.
3. He did not shout abuse at the owner but had approached him
quietly. He did not give notice of intent to resign from his
job.
DECISION:
4. The Court has fully considered all aspects of the submissions
oral and written and finds no grounds to alter the recommendation
of the Rights Commissioner.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
______________________
25th October, 1991. Deputy Chairman
F.B./J.C.