AD92193

Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92376 Case Number: AD92193 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: REYNOR SERVICES - and - A WORKER

Subject:
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. C.W. 108/92 concerning an alleged unfair dismissal.

Recommendation:
3. In the absence of any representative of the employer the Court
heard the submission of the worker concerned and in the light of
this recommends that the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation be
amended to a payment of #250 compensation in respect of his unfair
dismissal.

Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr Walsh

Text of Document__________________________________________________________________

CD92376 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD19392

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969


PARTIES: REYNOR SERVICES

and

A WORKER


SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. C.W.
108/92 concerning an alleged unfair dismissal.


BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The worker was employed by the Company for 11 months when
he was dismissed for working under protest because of the
appointment of a new foreman.


2. The workers were informed of the appointment of the new
foreman on 27th February, 1992. The workers had previous
experience of the foreman (details supplied) and informed the
production manager of their dissatisfaction. On 28th
February, the production manager was informed that the workers
were working under protest.


3. A meeting was arranged with the Company's owner for 28th
February. The owner was informed of the reasons why the
workers were working under protest. They were informed that
the appointment would not be changed and were requested to
withdraw their protest. The workers refused and were
dismissed.


4. The claim for alleged unfair dismissal of the worker in
this case was heard by a Rights Commissioner on 4th May, 1992.
The findings and recommendation as set out over issued on 18th
May, 1992.



"FINDINGS

I believe that both parties were at fault for not
seeking to resolve the issue more calmly after the
meeting on the Monday morning. The opportunity has been
obviously lost to effect any reconciliation. The
fairness of the dismissal, or otherwise, depends upon
the extent of the "refusal to work". The worker has
maintained that he was prepared to work normally but had
reservations about accepting the authority of the
appointee Foreman because of his previous history. The
owner understood that there was a complete refusal to
work. It seems to me that a substantial middle ground
existed which was not explored due to the heated nature
of the meeting. I consider that the worker did
contribute substantially to the dismissal, but that
dismissal was too severe in the circumstances.


*RECOMMENDATION

I recommend that the Company offers to re-engage the
worker, with no loss of continuity, with effect as soon
as is practicable and this is accepted in settlement of
this dispute.

(The worker and owner were name in the recommendation).


5. The Recommendation was appealed by the worker by letter
dated 22nd June. The Labour Court heard the appeal on 17th
August. The Company did not attend at the hearing.


WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The foreman appointed, had been dismissed by the Company
previously. His manner, approach and language were
unacceptable to the workers (details supplied). The worker
was concerned from what he had heard that the newly appointed
foreman would threaten the security of his job through loss of
business.


2. On no occasion, in his discussions with the Company did
the worker withdraw his labour. The workers offered to work
under protest and process their grievance through a third
party but this was rejected by the Company.



DECISION:
3. In the absence of any representative of the employer the Court
heard the submission of the worker concerned and in the light of
this recommends that the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation be
amended to a payment of #250 compensation in respect of his unfair
dismissal.
~

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
______________________
5th October, 1992. Deputy Chairman.
J.F./J.C.