Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91311 Case Number: AD9194 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: SUPERVALU LTD. - and - SUPERVALU LIMITED,;DUNGLOE, CO. DONEGAL;E. MACBRIDE AND COMPANY, SOLICITORS;A WORKER |
Appeal by both parties against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. S.T. 305/90 concerning the alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
is of the view that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation is
fair in the circumstances and should be upheld.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeals from both parties and
upholds the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
The Court so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91311 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD9491
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: SUPERVALU LIMITED,
DUNGLOE, CO. DONEGAL
(REPRESENTED BY E. MACBRIDE AND COMPANY, SOLICITORS)
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by both parties against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. S.T. 305/90 concerning the alleged unfair
dismissal of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker commenced employment with the Company as a manager
of the meat counter on 7th August, 1990. He claims that he was
employed on a permanent basis. The Company states that he was
employed in a temporary capacity. He was on authorised leave of
absence on the 20th and 21st August, 1990. When the worker
reported for work on 22nd August, 1990 his employment was
terminated by management. The worker claims he was unfairly
dismissed. The Company rejects the claim. The dispute was
referred to a Rights Commissioner who investigated it on 27th May,
1991 and issued the following recommendation on 31st May, 1991:-
"RECOMMENDATION
In view of my findings at 1 and 2 above I recommend that the
claimant was unfairly dismissed without notice and just cause
shown. By way of redress I recommend that he receives #3,000
compensation as his likelihood of finding alternative
employment is remote in his native country."
Both the Company and the worker appealed against the
recommendation under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. The Labour Court heard the appeals in Letterkenny on
23rd October, 1991.
WORKER's ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. When the worker reported for duty on 22nd August, 1990 he
was informed by the floor manager that the shop was
overstaffed and that the Company was letting him go. No other
reason was given and the worker did not receive any notice.
2. The worker left other employment in order to take up
employment with the Company on 7th August, 1990. Since his
dismissal he has been unable to obtain alternative employment.
The Rights Commissioner's recommendation of #3,000
compensation is completely inadequate in the circumstances.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was employed on a temporary basis and was
advised of his employment situation prior to taking up duty.
On 22nd August, 1990 management advised the worker that he was
no longer required. The worker was advised that he would be
re-employed when business improved. In the circumstances the
Company is appealing against the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
is of the view that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation is
fair in the circumstances and should be upheld.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeals from both parties and
upholds the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_________________
5th November, 1991 Deputy Chairman.
A.S./J.C.