Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91238 Case Number: AD9187 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: MR CHRISTOPHER DARBY - and - A WORKER |
Appeal by a worker against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. B.C.20/91 concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
5. The Court concurs with the finding of the Rights Commissioner
that the complainant was unfairly dismissed.
The Court however considers he should be compensated in the amount
of #750 and the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner should
be so amended.
The Court so decides.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91238 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD8791
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: MR CHRISTOPHER DARBY
TRADING AS CHRIS'S BARBER SHOP
(Represented by Daniel C. Maher, Allen and Company, Solicitors)
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by a worker against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. B.C.20/91 concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. Chris' Barber shop is located at North Street, Swords, Co
Dublin. The worker concerned commenced employment as a barber in
the shop on a part-time basis in or about April, 1990. In or
about October, 1990 he was employed on a full-time basis. On 24th
December, 1990 the shop was opened as usual for business. The
worker claims that he had been given permission by the employer on
the 23rd December to finish work between 2 and 3 p.m. on 24th
December. The worker worked until on or about 4 p.m. without a
lunch break before going home. On his return to work on 28th
December, 1990 the worker was dismissed. He claims he was
unfairly dismissed. The employer claims that he informed the
staff on 24th December, 1990 that if business became slack he
would close the shop early. The employer claims that the worker
left the shop without permission at or about 2 p.m., having been
warned that if he left he would be dismissed. The worker was
subsequently dismissed for walking off the job without any reason.
The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner who investigated
it on 13th March, 1991 and issued the following recommendation on
15th April, 1991:-
"RECOMMENDATION
In the light of the above I must uphold the claim by the
worker. I do not however recommend either re-instatement or
re-engagement. My recommendation is that Christopher Darby,
trading as Chris' Barber Shop, should pay to the worker the
sum of #510 and this is to be accepted by him in full and
final settlement of all claims of the employee in relation to
the termination to the employment.
(The worker was named in the recommendation).
The worker appealed against the recommendation under Section 13(9)
of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Labour Court heard the
appeal on 27th May, 1991.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. On 23rd December, 1990 the other member of staff in the
shop was allowed to finish work at 3 p.m. The worker was
told that he could finish between 2 p.m. and 3 p.m. on the
following day. The worker worked from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. on
24th December, 1990 when he went for lunch. He was
subsequently unfairly dismissed.
2. The worker is appealing the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation on the basis that the compensation awarded is
not sufficient. The worker has been unable to secure
alternative employment and has suffered humiliation as a
result of his unfair dismissal.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. On 24th December, 1990 the staff in the shop were
informed that they might be very busy but that if business
became slack the shop would close early. The shop was very
busy and on or about 2 p.m. the worker concerned announced
that he was going home. The worker was informed that if he
left the shop he would be dismissed. When the worker
returned on 28th December, 1990 he was dismissed for walking
off the job for no reason.
2. The employer did not have any complaint regarding the
worker's performance. It was wrong of him to leave the shop
without permission. Because of the worker's action the shop
was short staffed and delays resulted.
3. Due to a misunderstanding the employer did not attend
the hearing by the Rights Commissioner. The dismissal of the
worker was justified and no compensation should be paid.
DECISION:
5. The Court concurs with the finding of the Rights Commissioner
that the complainant was unfairly dismissed.
The Court however considers he should be compensated in the amount
of #750 and the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner should
be so amended.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
2nd October, 1991 Tom McGrath
A.S. / M.O'C. _______________
Deputy Chairman