Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91661 Case Number: LCR13537 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: TAVANLOUGH LIMITED - and - 3 WORKERS |
Claim by 3 workers that they were unfairly dismissed without notice and that they did not receive holiday and minimum notice payments due.
Recommendation:
5. The Court notes that at the hearing the Company indicated
that it would pay any holiday and minimum notice money due to
the 3 claimants. In the circumstances as outlined the Court
also recommends that the Company give the claimants a
reference.
The Court so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91661 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13537
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: TAVANLOUGH LIMITED
(TRADING AS THE PURTY KITCHEN)
(Represented by P.J. Walsh and Company, Solicitors)
and
3 WORKERS
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by 3 workers that they were unfairly dismissed
without notice and that they did not receive holiday and
minimum notice payments due.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company bought the licensed premises in January, 1991
which has a complement of approximately 8 permanent and 5
temporary staff. Worker A commenced work as a barman in the
premises in January, 1991 and workers B and C commenced
employment in May, 1991 as barmen. All 3 workers were employed
on the basis of a 2 month probationary period. Worker A was
subsequently appointed as assistant bar manager. On 28th
September, 1991 the 3 workers were dismissed from their
employment by the manager. The premises was closed during
October and November, 1991 for renovations. The 3 workers
claim they were unfairly dismissed without notice and did not
receive holiday and minimum notice payments due. The Company
rejects the claim that the 3 workers were unfairly dismissed
without notice. The workers referred the dispute to the
Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 16th January,
1992. Prior to the hearing the workers agreed to be bound by
the recommendation of the Court.
WORKERS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. After the workers completed their 2 month
probationary period they were given verbal assurances of
continued employment with the Company. They never
received any notice or warnings regarding possible
dismissal. When they were dismissed the manager refused
to give the 3 workers any explanation for their dismissal.
3. 2. After the Company bought the premises it complained
to all the staff about cash and stock shortages. The 3
workers concerned categorically deny any responsibility
for such shortages and doubt if they in fact existed. The
3 workers have demonstrated that other parties could have
been responsible for shortages (details supplied to the
Court).
3. 3. The 3 workers did not receive holiday and minimum
notice pay. They should also be supplied with a reference
by the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. When the Company bought the premises the projections
for income and turnover were good. However it transpired
that the premises was badly run and there were constant
large cash and stock shortages. All the staff, including
the 3 workers concerned, were kept informed of the
shortages and were requested to improve their
performances. Things did not improve and the Company was
not able to identify any one individual responsible for
the shortages. The staff had a collective responsibility
for the on-going shortages and the Company was entitled to
take the action which it took to control the situation.
The Company does not accept that the 3 workers concerned
were unfairly dismissed.
4. 2. The Company will arrange to make holiday and minimum
notice payments. The Company is prepared to provide
references for the 3 workers.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court notes that at the hearing the Company indicated
that it would pay any holiday and minimum notice money due to
the 3 claimants. In the circumstances as outlined the Court
also recommends that the Company give the claimants a
reference.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
3rd February, 1992. --------------------
A.S./N.Ni.M
Deputy Chairman