Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92188 Case Number: AD92165 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: ARLINGTON MOTORS LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
An appeal by the worker against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. B.C. 476/91 regarding an alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
during the hearing of this appeal. The Court is strongly of the
opinion that an employer's responsibility to an apprentice must be
given prime consideration in all circumstances. The Court
therefore decides that the worker should be reinstated in his
apprenticeship with effect from 15th June, 1992 and maintained
therein until his apprenticeship is completed or a satisfactory
alternative employment which will allow him to complete his
apprenticeship is found for him.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92188 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD16592
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: ARLINGTON MOTORS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE SOCIETY OF THE IRISH MOTOR INDUSTRY)
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. An appeal by the worker against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. B.C. 476/91 regarding an alleged unfair
dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The worker was employed by the Company as an apprentice
mechanic in January, 1991. The worker had previously spent a
year with F.A.S. (the training and employment authority). The
time with F.A.S. was worth 2 years of his apprenticeship
(apprentices spend the first year of their apprenticeships
with F.A.S.).
2. The worker was let go by the Company in November, 1991,
the third year of his apprenticeship. The worker brought a
claim for alleged unfair dismissal to the Rights
Commissioner's Service. A Rights Commissioner's investigation
was held on 24th February, 1992 and the recommendation as set
out below was issued on 4th March, 1992.
"Having investigated the matter and having given full and
careful consideration to the points made by the employer
I am satisfied that the dismissal was not unfair. I
therefore deem that the claim by the worker should fail
and I recommend accordingly".
(The worker was named in the Recommendation).
3. The worker did not attend the Rights Commissioner's
investigation. The worker appealed the recommendation to the
Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. A Labour Court investigation took place on 27th
May, 1992.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker did not attend the Rights Commissioner's
investigation because of a misunderstanding about the date set
for the investigation. The worker was let go in the third
year of his apprenticeship and because of the general
recession in the industry, he has not been able to secure
another position to complete his apprenticeship. The worker
has been abandoned by the Company which has abdicated its
responsibility to him as an apprentice. The Company made no
efforts to secure an alternative apprenticeship position for
him.
2. The Company let the worker go because of trading
difficulties. The Company, however, recruited 2 new mechanics
on trial a few weeks before the worker was let go. The worker
finds it strange that, in poor trading circumstances, 2 fully
qualified mechanics were recruited and a less highly paid
apprentice was let go.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's position is that it was forced to let the
worker go because of trading difficulties. The Company is
newly operating as a main-dealer. In 1990, trading conditions
for both the industry and the Company were favourable. In
1991, however, the Company's turnover decreased more than the
large reduction for the industry as a whole (details
supplied). This was a very serious situation for a new
Company and it was forced to let the worker go. In normal
circumstances the Company would not take such action but the
seriousness of its financial situation warranted the action.
2. The Company would consider re-employing the worker if its
trading situation improves. Unfortunately an improvement has
not taken place to date. Although the Company, for commercial
reasons, recruited 2 qualified mechanics, no apprentices have
been recruited and in the present circumstances, the Company
is not in a position to do so.
DECISION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
during the hearing of this appeal. The Court is strongly of the
opinion that an employer's responsibility to an apprentice must be
given prime consideration in all circumstances. The Court
therefore decides that the worker should be reinstated in his
apprenticeship with effect from 15th June, 1992 and maintained
therein until his apprenticeship is completed or a satisfactory
alternative employment which will allow him to complete his
apprenticeship is found for him.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
________________________
8th June, 1992. Deputy Chairman
J.F./J.C.