Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92637 Case Number: LCR13899 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: ACE TYRES & EXHAUSTS - and - A WORKER;E. LYSAGHT & CO. SOLICITORS |
Alleged Unfair Dismissal.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions from the parties and on the
basis of the evidence presented, the Court is of the view that the
claimant was fairly treated and accordingly does not recommend in
favour of his claim of "unfair dismissal".
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92637 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13899
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: ACE TYRES & EXHAUSTS
AND
A WORKER
(Represented by E. Lysaght & Co. Solicitors)
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged Unfair Dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker commenced employment with the Company on the 6th
of July 1991 as a trainee tyre and exhaust fitter. His
employment was terminated on the 8th of May 1992, on the
grounds that he was unsuitable, for various reasons. The
worker disputes his dismissal and referred the case to the
Labour Court for investigation on the 15th of October 1992,
in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. The Court investigated the dispute on the 2nd
December, 1992.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The good relationship which the worker had with the
Company broke down as a consequence of two mishaps which took
place in the course of his duties. The sump of a Mercedes
was damaged while being jacked-up, and in a separate
incident, a tyre was damaged while being fitted. The mishaps
are normal occurrences in the particular type of work.
The worker was given neither advice nor training as to how to
avoid such accidents.
2. He was treated in a manner which was less than fair by
comparison to the treatment of another employee. The employer
simply took a dislike to the worker. He was given no
warning, either written or oral about his dismissal.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker showed a lack of interest in learning aspects
of the job. He disobeyed repeated instructions concerning
the use of an airgun.
2. He removed and dismantled a tape-recorder from a car
which he was valeting, actions which he denied at the time
but for which he admitted responsibility subsequently.
3. In another incident, the worker damaged the sump of a
Mercedes car as a result of jacking-up the car improperly.
He had previously been personally instructed in the correct
use of the jack.
4. He constantly used bad language in front of customers.
He was the subject of a complaint by a customer who cited his
foul language as the reason that she would be taking her
business elsewhere.
5. He was given repeated warnings about his behaviour.
When his employment was terminated he was paid 4 weeks' pay,
which was in excess of the amount due to him.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties and on the
basis of the evidence presented, the Court is of the view that the
claimant was fairly treated and accordingly does not recommend in
favour of his claim of "unfair dismissal".
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
11th December, 1992 Evelyn Owens
M.K./M.H. ____________________________________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.