Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92166 Case Number: LCR13659 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: MCKEEVER TRANSPORT LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Dispute regarding an alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
5. The Court considers that the absence of negotiated conditions
of employment or individual written contracts of employment is a
major industrial relations weakness in the Company and should be
corrected without delay. The position is worsened by ad-hoc
arrangements to deal with such matters as accidents and these
arrangements should be formalised.
Despite the above, the Court, having regard to the claimant's
employment history, does not consider that he was unfairly
dismissed.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Brennan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92166 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13659
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
PARTIES: MCKEEVER TRANSPORT LIMITED
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute regarding an alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The worker was employed by the Company on 8th October,
1991, directly after he had passed the F.A.S. Heavy Goods
Vehicle driving course. His employment was terminated by the
Company on 6th December, 1991.
2. The worker alleged that he was unfairly dismissed by the
Company and referred the dispute to the Labour Court under
Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour
Court investigation took place on 28th April, 1992.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was the most qualified driver in the Company.
Although lacking in experience, the worker received no
training and was put driving immediately. The worker had a
number of small accidents (details supplied) while with the
Company and he paid his share of the damage costs. Although
employed as a driver, the worker, without complaint, spent
much of his time in the stock room. At interview, the Company
stated that shift work would only be done on a
week-on/week-off basis and then only when there were 2 drivers
with the Company. There were never 2 drivers with the
Company. The Company did not put the worker on probation.
2. Working conditions in the Company were poor, hours of work
were long, wages were low and conditions could be difficult
(details supplied). As a result there was a large turnover of
workers. The worker attempted to improve wages and conditions
by organising a petition among the workers. When the petition
was delivered to the Company, the worker was transferred to
the night shift without notice and when he objected, he was
instantly dismissed (details supplied).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was employed as a shift operator/driver. His
duties included arranging consignments, fork-lift driving,
loading/unloading trucks and city/country collections and
deliveries. The worker agreed to the employment terms
including a 6 months probationary period. As the worker had
no experience, he was given training by the Company. When the
normal training period expired, the worker still needed
considerably more training. Up to 9th December, 1991, the
worker had 5 accidents while driving, causing considerable
damage to Company property (details supplied).
2. The worker was transferred to the night-shift after only 6
weeks with the Company, in view of the difficulties which had
arisen (details supplied). The worker refused to transfer and
submitted a list of demands regarding wages and conditions.
The Company agreed to discuss the list of demands when the
worker was on the night-shift. As the worker refused to move
the Company was left with no alternative but to dismiss him
(details supplied).
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court considers that the absence of negotiated conditions
of employment or individual written contracts of employment is a
major industrial relations weakness in the Company and should be
corrected without delay. The position is worsened by ad-hoc
arrangements to deal with such matters as accidents and these
arrangements should be formalised.
Despite the above, the Court, having regard to the claimant's
employment history, does not consider that he was unfairly
dismissed.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
__________________________
20th May, 1992. Chairman
J.F./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.