Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91615 Case Number: AD92143 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: RE-PLAY - and - A WORKER;HERMAN GOOD WINE STOKES AND JAY |
Appeal by the worker of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. CW275/91.
Recommendation:
I recommend that the employer offers the sum of £260 and a
considered suitable reference to the worker which is
accepted by him in full and final settlement of this
dispute."
(Both the worker and the employer were named in the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation.)
The Rights Commissioner's recommendation was rejected by the
worker who appealed it to the Labour Court on 19th November,
1991, under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
The Court heard the appeal on 19th February, 1992. (An earlier
hearing on 10th December, 1991, was adjourned to allow the
worker seek professional representation).
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker contends that he was approached by the
Company to work in the Grafton Street shop. Whilst there
he re-arranged the lay-out and window display for which he
received positive comments. When moved to the Ilac Centre
shop he also re-arranged the lay-out and this appeared to
be satisfactory to the Company.
2. On one particular week the shop's takings exceeding
£7,000 and the worker was given a £10 bonus instead of the
agreed £30 bonus. The worker argued with the employer that
he was being underpaid the agreed bonus; however, he did
not receive the outstanding monies. The employer/worker
relationship deteriorated after this event.
3. On the day of his dismissal, the worker was taken by
his employer to a coffee shop where he was summarily
dismissed with one week's notice. The only reasons
forwarded for his dismissal were vague expressions of
dislike of the worker and incompatibility. The worker
was not afforded any opportunity of responding to any
complaints. The worker contends that the mode, manner and
execution of his dismissal was inherently unfair.
4. The Company has made a number of specific allegations
regarding the worker including the fact that reduced
takings in the Grafton Street shop is attributable to the
worker, that he made excessive telephone calls and that he
got his hair done every day. The worker denied all of the
allegations.
5. The worker did receive a reference from the Company;
however, its wording he claimed was of no benefit to him.
As a result of his dismissal and the reference being of no
assistance, the worker was unemployed for a number of
months.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Following the worker's appointment to the Grafton
Street shop, the takings decreased by £3,000 per week. The
Company was concerned about this and so informed the
worker. During the worker's time in this shop, the
telephone bill increases by 30%. (Details provided to the
Court).
2. The worker, following his holidays, was moved by the
Company to its Ilac Centre shop as it was felt that he was
incapable of working on his own initiative. While working
in the Ilac Centre shop the worker got his hair done every
day during Company time. The worker was informed of the
Company's dissatisfaction with his behaviour and his
telephone usage. It appears that the worker made frequent
telephone calls to conduct his own business activities.
3. The worker was given out to on a number of occasions
regarding telephone calls but to no avail. One day a
personal call came through for the worker and the employer
informed the caller that personal calls were not allowed.
The worker remonstrated with the employer about this and
tried to claim the caller was in fact a customer of the
shop.
4. The Company were totally unhappy with the worker and
would not be prepared to employ him again.
DECISION:
5. The Court, having considered the views of the parties in
their oral and written submissions and the reasoning of the
Rights Commissioner, does not find grounds for amending the
recommendation.
Accordingly, the Court upholds the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation.
The Court so decides.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91615 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD14392
SECTION 13(9) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: RE-PLAY
(Represented by Eamonn Greene and Company)
and
A WORKER
(Represented by Herman Good Wine Stokes and Jay)
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the worker of Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. CW275/91.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was employed by the Company in April,
1991, to manage its shop in Grafton Street, Dublin. His wages
were £130 net per week plus bonus payments of £30 or £50 where
sales exceeded £7,000 and £8,000 per week respectively. He
worked in the Grafton Street shop for several weeks before going
on holidays in May, 1991. Upon his return he was informed that
the Company required a manager for its shop in the Ilac Centre
in Dublin and was requested to transfer there. The worker
complied and started working in the Ilac Centre shop. In June,
1991, the Company dismissed the worker with one weeks' notice.
The worker alleged that his dismissal was unfair and referred
the matter to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. On 21st
October, 1991, the Rights Commissioner issued the following
findings and recommendation:
"FINDINGS
Most statements from the two parties are totally at
variance and irreconcilable. There is no evidence in
written form of any sort. There is no independent unbiased
testimony to help guide me. The worker concerned was an
employee of about 3 months standing and could be considered
to be still on probation whether this was made explicit or
not. An employee on probation can certainly be dismissed
but there is an obligation on an employer that such a
dismissal is carried out in a fair manner and on reasonable
grounds.
In this dispute I am not convinced that the requirements
for a fair dismissal were properly followed and therefore I
believe limited compensation is due to the worker.
RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that the employer offers the sum of £260 and a
considered suitable reference to the worker which is
accepted by him in full and final settlement of this
dispute."
(Both the worker and the employer were named in the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation.)
The Rights Commissioner's recommendation was rejected by the
worker who appealed it to the Labour Court on 19th November,
1991, under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
The Court heard the appeal on 19th February, 1992. (An earlier
hearing on 10th December, 1991, was adjourned to allow the
worker seek professional representation).
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker contends that he was approached by the
Company to work in the Grafton Street shop. Whilst there
he re-arranged the lay-out and window display for which he
received positive comments. When moved to the Ilac Centre
shop he also re-arranged the lay-out and this appeared to
be satisfactory to the Company.
2. On one particular week the shop's takings exceeding
£7,000 and the worker was given a £10 bonus instead of the
agreed £30 bonus. The worker argued with the employer that
he was being underpaid the agreed bonus; however, he did
not receive the outstanding monies. The employer/worker
relationship deteriorated after this event.
3. On the day of his dismissal, the worker was taken by
his employer to a coffee shop where he was summarily
dismissed with one week's notice. The only reasons
forwarded for his dismissal were vague expressions of
dislike of the worker and incompatibility. The worker
was not afforded any opportunity of responding to any
complaints. The worker contends that the mode, manner and
execution of his dismissal was inherently unfair.
4. The Company has made a number of specific allegations
regarding the worker including the fact that reduced
takings in the Grafton Street shop is attributable to the
worker, that he made excessive telephone calls and that he
got his hair done every day. The worker denied all of the
allegations.
5. The worker did receive a reference from the Company;
however, its wording he claimed was of no benefit to him.
As a result of his dismissal and the reference being of no
assistance, the worker was unemployed for a number of
months.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Following the worker's appointment to the Grafton
Street shop, the takings decreased by £3,000 per week. The
Company was concerned about this and so informed the
worker. During the worker's time in this shop, the
telephone bill increases by 30%. (Details provided to the
Court).
2. The worker, following his holidays, was moved by the
Company to its Ilac Centre shop as it was felt that he was
incapable of working on his own initiative. While working
in the Ilac Centre shop the worker got his hair done every
day during Company time. The worker was informed of the
Company's dissatisfaction with his behaviour and his
telephone usage. It appears that the worker made frequent
telephone calls to conduct his own business activities.
3. The worker was given out to on a number of occasions
regarding telephone calls but to no avail. One day a
personal call came through for the worker and the employer
informed the caller that personal calls were not allowed.
The worker remonstrated with the employer about this and
tried to claim the caller was in fact a customer of the
shop.
4. The Company were totally unhappy with the worker and
would not be prepared to employ him again.
DECISION:
5. The Court, having considered the views of the parties in
their oral and written submissions and the reasoning of the
Rights Commissioner, does not find grounds for amending the
recommendation.
Accordingly, the Court upholds the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
12th March, 1992 ____________________
B.O.N./N.Ni.M. Deputy Chairman