Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92509 Case Number: LCR13788 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: TOM BARRETT - and - A WORKER;PETER BOYLE, SOLICITOR |
Alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions of the partes, the Court
considers there is no doubt that the Employer's ability to offer
gainful employment had ceased and that termination of employment
was imminent. If the apprenticeship had been registered then a
further involvement by F.A.S. would have been warranted but this
is not the case.
The Court considers that summary dismissal was not appropriate and
recommends that the claimant be paid two weeks net pay (#120) in
full and final settlement of his claim. In addition an
appropriate reference should be forwarded to the claimant without
further delay.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92509 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13788
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: TOM BARRETT
and
A WORKER
(Represented by Peter Boyle, Solicitor)
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Employer as
a trainee electrician on the 1st May, 1991. His weekly wage was
#60 net per week. He was enrolled in Kevin Street College of
Technology but the apprenticeship was not registered with F.A.S.
The worker was dismissed on the 13th April, 1992. He claimed that
his dismissal was unfair and referred the issue to a Rights
Commissioner for investigation. The Employer objected to such an
investigation. Subsequently the worker referred the dispute to
the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A
Court hearing was held on the 5th October, 1992.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. During the period of his employment the worker concerned
received no complaints from the employer about his work and
his attendance record was generally good. On the morning of
the 10th April, 1992 he was unable to attend work due to
illness and failed to contact the employer. He reported for
work on the 13th April and explained the reasons for his
absence. The employer dismissed him in an arbitrary fashion.
2. The worker has been treated in an unfair and unjust
manner by the employer. The worker never received a written
warning to indicate that his conduct was unsatisfactory or
that his job was in jeopardy. He was asked to work, on
numerous occasions, days that he was scheduled to attend Kevin
St. College.
3. Despite many requests to his former employer the worker
has not received a reference. This has had a detrimental
effect on his obtaining further employment.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. For the first three months of the employment, the worker
was satisfactory and despite some late attendances the
employer felt that, if given the opportunity, the worker would
improve. This was not the case. He failed to attend numerous
classes at Kevin St, and this was borne out when he failed to
reach the required standard in his examinations (details
supplied to the Court). The employer rejects the worker's
claim that he was requested to work on occasions when due at
College. This happened on only one occasion.
2. The employer received a number of complaints from
workmen at varous sites about the worker's attitude to his
job. He refused to work Saturdays when requested. In recent
times the employer lost two contracts (due to lower tenders)
and work is in short supply at the present time. He has many
financial pressures and is presently working on his own. In
all the circumstances the employer had no option but to
terminate the employment of the worker concerned.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions of the partes, the Court
considers there is no doubt that the Employer's ability to offer
gainful employment had ceased and that termination of employment
was imminent. If the apprenticeship had been registered then a
further involvement by F.A.S. would have been warranted but this
is not the case.
The Court considers that summary dismissal was not appropriate and
recommends that the claimant be paid two weeks net pay (#120) in
full and final settlement of his claim. In addition an
appropriate reference should be forwarded to the claimant without
further delay.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
12th October, 1992 ----------------
T. O'D/U.S. Chairman