Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91460 Case Number: LCR13639 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: B.L. CONSTRUCTION (DUBLIN) LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
A dispute concerning alleged unfair dismissal and arears of wages due.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court does not consider that the circumstances surrounding the
termination of employment could be interpreted as unfair
dismissal. Further, the Court, on examination of the details
supplied, does not consider that there are any payments
outstanding as a result of the termination of employment.
The Court therefore does not recommend concession of the Unions
claims.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91460 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13639
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
PARTIES: B.L. CONSTRUCTION (DUBLIN LIMITED)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. A dispute concerning alleged unfair dismissal and arears of
wages due.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker commenced employment with the Company in February,
1991 on an agreed salary of £200 nett plus overtime payable at the
rate of £5 an hour. After his first week in employment he queried
the amount of wages that had been paid to him as he felt that he
had not been paid for one hour of overtime. The worker was
informed by the accountant that this would be rectified the
following week. He was subsequently informed by his employer that
he had been employed on the understanding that he was a carpenter
and as such had been offered the craft rate of £200. The employer
maintained that since it transpired that the worker was not a
qualified carpenter he was only entitled to be paid the general
operative rate of £150 nett per week. The Union contends that the
worker did not claim to be a qualified carpenter and that the
payment of £200 was agreed irrespective of his qualification.
On the 11th April, 1991 the worker was informed that he was being
let go and his employment terminated on 18th April, 1991. The
Union claims that the dismissal was unfair.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court under Section 20(1)
of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 in September, 1991. The
worker agreed to accept the recommendation of the Court and the
Court investigated the dispute on Thursday 9th April, 1992 (the
earliest date suitable to the parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker did not at any stage, lead the Company to
believe that he was a fully qualified carpenter. He was
employed as a general operative on an agreed salary of £200
nett per week and the Company has failed to honour this
agreement. The worker is entitled to £1,095 in respect of
arrears of wages and holiday pay.
2. The worker's employment was terminated not because the
contract on which he was working was finishing but solely
because of his persistence in querying his pay and conditions
of employment.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was employed on the understanding that he was a
carpenter and as such was offered the craft rate of £200.
When it came to the Company's attention that the worker was
not qualified, his salary was adjusted to that appropriate to
general operative. He is therefore not entitled to any
arrears of wages.
2. The worker was given one week's notice on 11th April, 1991
as the job on which he was employed was finishing up and there
was no other work available for him. It is Company policy
that last in is first out and the worker was the last general
operative employed by the Company. He was not unfairly
dismissed.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court does not consider that the circumstances surrounding the
termination of employment could be interpreted as unfair
dismissal. Further, the Court, on examination of the details
supplied, does not consider that there are any payments
outstanding as a result of the termination of employment.
The Court therefore does not recommend concession of the Unions
claims.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_________________________
30th April, 1992. Deputy Chairman
A.NiS/J.C.