Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92160 Case Number: AD92190 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: LIFFEY DEVELOPMENTS - and - A WORKER |
An appeal by both parties against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. BC430/91 concerning the alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
Recommendation:
The Court, having considered the views of the dispute expressed by
the parties, decides the worker concerned be paid an amount of
#250 in full and final settlement of the claim.
The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation should be amended
accordingly.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92160 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD19092
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: LIFFEY DEVELOPMENTS
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. An appeal by both parties against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. BC430/91 concerning the alleged unfair
dismissal of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was employed as a bricklayer by the
Company from 20th September, 1990 until 5th October, 1990. The
worker claims that, on commencement of his employment, he was
assured by the Company that there would be approximately six
months employment for him on the site where he commenced his
employment. However, after only a few weeks he and five other
bricklayers were laid off. The worker maintains that, when he
visited the site a few days after he was laid off, he found that
four bricklayers had been re-employed of whom two had started
after the worker concerned. The worker, therefore, alleges that
he was badly treated and was unfairly dismissed by the Company.
The Company denies the allegations and states that the worker was
laid off due to a genuine decline in business.
The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. A Rights Commissioner's
investigation took place on 11th February, 1992 and the following
recommendation issued on 26th February, 1992.
"In the light of the above and having given the most careful
consideration to the points made by each party, it is my
conviction that the worker was unfairly dismissed from his
employment on the date in question. I therefore uphold his
claim and I recommend that Liffey Developments should pay the
worker the sum of #750 and that this be accepted by him in
full and final settlement of all claims on the Company in
relation to his employment and its termination."
The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation was appealed to the
Labour Court by both parties in accordance with Section 36(2) of
the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took
place on 4th May, 1992.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was given an assurance by the Company foreman
that he was guaranteed six months employment with the
Company. It was on the basis of this assurance that he
accepted the position with the Company and declined an offer
of employment with another Company in the same area. As a
result the worker was unemployed except for two weeks until
May, 1991.
2. While in employment with the Company, the worker was
asked to become a sub-contractor. He declined on the grounds
that he would be fined by his union. He stated to the
Company that all he was seeking were his basic entitlements
as an employee i.e. travelling time, tool and meal allowance
and holiday pay. When his employment was terminated the
worker felt that it was because of his attempts to regularise
his employment and that he had been victimised.
3. When the worker returned to the site, some days after
his employment had been terminated, he found that four
bricklayers had been re-employed and he alleges that two of
these had commenced employment after him. The worker felt
that as he was more senior he should have been approached
with an offer of re-employment.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company denies vehemently that the worker was ever
given a guarantee of 6 months work. Due to the volatile
nature of the business it would be impossible to give such a
guarantee.
2. Due to the poor sale of houses on the particular site a
genuine redundancy situation existed and it was necessary to
make the worker redundant. He was not dismissed. Neither
the worker nor his crew was replaced. All bricklayers
re-employed by the Company since the redundancies arose, are
workers who have previously been employed with the Company on
various sites and who could be considered as "regular"
bricklayers.
DECISION:
The Court, having considered the views of the dispute expressed by
the parties, decides the worker concerned be paid an amount of
#250 in full and final settlement of the claim.
The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation should be amended
accordingly.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
27th August, 1992 Tom McGrath
A.O.S./M.H. ------------------------------------
Deputy Chairman