Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9248 Case Number: LCR13579 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: BRIAN CONNON LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Dispute concerning alleged unfair selection for redundancy.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made the Court, having
regard to the circumstances in which the worker was dismissed, is
of the opinion that he is due some payment in lieu of notice.
Accordingly the Court recommends that he be paid two weeks wages
in final settlement of his claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9248 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13579
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
PARTIES: BRIAN CONNON LIMITED
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning alleged unfair selection for redundancy.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a haulage contractor and is involved in the
business of transporting hazardous chemicals and gases. The
worker concerned was employed as a truck driver with the Company
until his employment was terminated in September, 1991. On Friday
13th September the worker received his wages as normal. That
evening at a social function he met the Secretary of the Company
who asked him to call into the office the following morning in
order to collect some overtime money which had been omitted from
his pay packet. The worker claims that when he called to the
office on the Saturday morning he was informed that as the Company
had lost some contracts it was left with no option but to make him
redundant. The worker advised that as other drivers with less
service were being kept on he could not accept that he should be
selected for redundancy. The worker alleges that the Company
admitted that its redundancy policy was normally 'last in, first
out' but that as it was felt that the worker disliked the job the
decision was made to let him go. The Company denies that the
worker was made redundant. It claims that he was dismissed
because he was considered inadequate for the job in question.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court under Section 20(1)
of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court investigated the
dispute on 10th February, 1992.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The reason given to the worker for the termination of his
employment was redundancy. His conduct was never mentioned.
At no time during the worker's employment with the Company was
a complaint made to him regarding his work.
2. During the summer of 1991, having made several requests,
the worker received his P60. He discovered discrepancies in
it which he brought to the Company's attention. The worker
contends that it was because of his questioning of tax related
matters that he was unfairly selected for redundancy.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has an obligation, in transporting dangerous
chemicals and gases, to ensure that the highest standards of
maintenance and safety are maintained. While the vehicle is
on the road this responsibility lies with the driver. The
worker's ability to adequately carry out the job for which he
was employed came into question as a result of incidents which
arose in relation to the safety of his vehicle while under his
care (details supplied to the Court). The Company had no
option but to terminate the worker's employment.
2. After the second incident involving the worker concerned
the Company received a letter from its main client requesting
the Company to refrain from using the worker on any of its
(the clients) work. This would mean designating the worker to
the work of particular clients only and would not be
financially viable.
3. The worker did bring tax discrepancies to the attention of
the Company for which it was very grateful. The discrepancies
were immediately rectified. The decision to let the worker go
had nothing to do with the worker querying his P60.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made the Court, having
regard to the circumstances in which the worker was dismissed, is
of the opinion that he is due some payment in lieu of notice.
Accordingly the Court recommends that he be paid two weeks wages
in final settlement of his claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_______________________
3rd March, 1992. Deputy Chairman
A.NiS./J.C.
Note:
Any correspondence on this Recommendation should be
addressed to:-
Aoibheann Ni Shuilleabhain
Court Secretary,
The Labour Court,
Tom Johnson House,
Haddington Road,
Dublin 4.
Telephone (01) 608444.
--------------