Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91573 Case Number: AD92150 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: LONDIS SUPERMARKET - and - A WORKER;B.M. OWENS (SOLICITORS |
Appeal by the worker against Rights Commissioner's recommendation B.C. 255/91 concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties at the
appeal the Court is of the opinion that the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation was correct. The Court therefore decides that the
Recommendation should stand.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91573 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD15092
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: LONDIS SUPERMARKET
and
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY B.M. OWENS (SOLICITORS)
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the worker against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation B.C. 255/91 concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment as an apprentice
butcher at the Londis Supermarket, Bannagher, Co. Offaly on the
4th June, 1991. His employment terminated on the 22nd June, 1991.
He claimed that he had been unfairly dismissed and referred the
issue to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. On the 21st
October, 1991 the Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation as
follows:
"Having heard the submissions from each party and having given
each submission the most careful consideration my belief is
that the worker resigned his position. Therefore the
question of dismissal just does not arise. I therefore
recommend that the claimant's case must fail".
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation).
The worker appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the
1st November, 1991. The Court heard the appeal in Portlaoise on
the 24th March, 1992.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker concerned replaced an apprentice butcher who
had left the employment after serving eighteen months of his
apprenticeship. The worker was under the supervision of two
qualified butchers, and his duties consisted of washing up,
cutting meat and serving customers. There were no complaints
from customers about his work. On the 18th June, two weeks
into his apprenticeship, the manager advised the worker that
he was unhappy with the worker's performance. The worker
maintained that he had been performing his duties adequately.
He was not afforded an opportunity by Management to explain
his position properly or ascertain exactly what was wrong with
his performance as an apprentice butcher.
2. The worker returned to his job on Friday 21st June, 1991
and he was boycotted by his co-workers. He claims that there
was a deliberate attempt by Management to force him to leave
the job. He was unable to continue in the employment because
of the treatment meted out to him by the other two butchers
who did not speak to him or give him instructions. He left
the employment on Saturday 22nd June.
3. The worker was forced to leave his job because of the
manner in which he was treated. He did not resign from his
employment. The worker claims that a two week period is
insufficient for Management to assess his performance as an
apprentice butcher especially considering that he had replaced
an apprentice who had been in the employment for eighteen
months.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company employed the worker as an apprentice butcher
(even though at 23 years of age he was relatively old for an
apprentice) because of his eagerness to work in the meat
trade. The Manager discussed his progress with the two
butchers on a regular basis over the first two weeks. The
butchers advised the Manager that the worker concerned was not
paying attention to their instructions and advice. The worker
gave the impression that he did not need instruction.
2. On Tuesday 18th June the manager had a meeting with the
worker and discussed his progress. He advised the worker of
the statements of the other two butchers and told him that he
must listen to their instructions and advice as otherwise he
would make no progress in his apprenticeship. The Manager
explained to the worker that he was dissatisfied with his
progress and if he did not improve he would be let go. The
worker seemed unable to accept the Manager's criticisms and
became quite annoyed, even though the Manager had long
experience in the trade and had put many apprentices through
his hands. He had enough experience to decide at an early
stage about the worker's progress.
3. The worker asked the Manager during the meeting if he was
being sacked. The Manager stated that he was not being
dismissed and that he was willing to give the worker another
chance. They agreed that the worker could have another two
weeks to prove his suitability. The worker had a day off on
Wednesday 19th June. He did not attend on Thursday 20th June,
stating that he was helping out at home. He returned to work
on Friday and Saturday and the Company heard nothing from him
thereafter. Management understood that the worker had left
the employment. He was not dismissed. He left his position
of his own accord without explanation. There was absolutely
no conspiracy by the Manager and other butchers to get rid of
the worker.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties at the
appeal the Court is of the opinion that the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation was correct. The Court therefore decides that the
Recommendation should stand.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_______________________
6th April, 1992. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.