Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92524 Case Number: LCR13784 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: EXTRASPACE - and - A WORKER |
Dispute concerning the alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
Recommendation:
7. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is of the opinion that the worker was unfairly chosen to be
made redundant, in light of the comparative length of his service.
The Court recommends that he be paid compensation to the amount of
#250.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92524 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13784
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: EXTRASPACE
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed as a carpenter by the Company from 6th
May, 1991 to 24th April, 1992. He was paid up to 1st May, 1992.
3. The worker was previously employed by EuroKabin, Baldoyle
Industrial Estate, and on the recommendation of its Director
obtained a job with Extraspace which is also located at Baldoyle
Industrial Estate. He was paid #5 an hour plus #25 a week bonus.
This was later adjusted to a fixed rate of #320 per week plus #25
a week bonus because of overtime working. At the end of
September, 1991 his wages were reduced to #264.42 per week due to
shorter working hours during the winter months.
4. The worker was dismissed from his employment because of a
downturn in business and as he was the highest paid carpenter
(there were two carpenters employed), the worker considered that
he was unfairly selected for dismissal and referred the dispute to
a Rights Commissioner for investigation. The Company declined an
invitation to attend a Rights Commissioner's hearing. The worker
then referred the dispute to the Labour Court for investigation
and recommendation under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 22nd September,
1992. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's
recommendation.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Company unfairly selected the worker for dismissal as
he had longer service than the other carpenter.
2. The Company never discussed the issue with the worker.
Had they done so he would have considered taking a cut in
wages. As it was he had already accepted two wage deductions
during the course of his employment.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The worker was dismissed because of a downturn in
business. He was selected because he was the highest paid
worker and the Company was endeavouring to maximise savings.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is of the opinion that the worker was unfairly chosen to be
made redundant, in light of the comparative length of his service.
The Court recommends that he be paid compensation to the amount of
#250.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
____________________
9th October, 1992. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Daughen, Court Secretary.