Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92516 Case Number: LCR13791 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: TRIBUNA TAVERNS LIMITED (SEARSONS) - and - A WORKER |
Dispute concerning the dismissal of a worker.
Recommendation:
Having considered the events as retailed to the Court by both
parties, the Court must express its condemnation in the strongest
possible terms of the employers failure to protect a
worker from intimidation and abuse by a member of its staff
clearly in a position of some authority over him.
The result has been the loss of this young workers employment
through no fault of his own. In the circumstances the Court
recommends that he be paid full pay from 2nd June, 1992 to the
date of issue of this recommendation plus a sum of #250
compensation for the seriously unjust manner in which he was
treated.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92516 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13791
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: TRIBUNA TAVERNS LIMITED (SEARSONS)
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the dismissal of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. In early May, 1992 a vacancy for a bar person arose in
Tribuna Taverns Ltd. The worker (who was then employed as a
barperson in the Royal Dublin Hotel) was approached to see if he
knew someone who would be interested in the job. He did not know
anybody but expressed interest in the job as the pay and
conditions were better. He was subsequently interviewed and
commenced employment on 18th May, 1992.
3. On the night of 26th May, 1992 the worker's former bar
manager came into the premises and ordered the worker to go home.
The manager of Searsons was not on the premises at the time and
was only made aware of the incident later on that night. (The
only connection that both managers have is that they jointly stock
take once a month). On the following morning the worker reported
for duty and was advised to take a couple of days off while the
manager of Searsons would sort the matter out.
4. The manager took ill a few days later and was on sick leave
for a week. The worker contends that after waiting for the matter
to be sorted out for approximately a week he was dismissed. The
Company contend that the worker called in a week after the
incident, collected his wages and gave notice that he was
terminating his employment.
5. The worker referred a claim for unfair dismissal 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 Court hearing was held on 22nd September, 1992. The
worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. When the worker handed in his notice at the Royal Dublin
Hotel the manager accepted it without question and the
worker worked his notice without incident.
2. At the end of the third night on which the worker was
working in Searsons he was informed by his manager that there
was a possibility that he might be let go as his former
manager had called into the pub and gave out about him, but
his manager would endeavour to keep him on. However, the
worker worked under a cloud for the rest of the week.
3. On the night of the incident the worker's former manager
spoke to him in such a tone that he felt threatened and had
no option but to go home.
4. The worker considers that he was unfairly treated in
that appropriate action was not taken and that he was
dismissed the following week. He accordingly asks the Court
to recommend compensation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. On the day following the incident of 26th May, 1992 the
worker was told by the manager that he alone had sole
authority in the pub and that his former manager had no
connection or authority in Searson's pub save regarding
stocktaking which was done monthly. The worker was then
advised to take a few days off work while the problem was
sorted out. Unfortunately the manager took sick and was out
of work for a week. The worker rang the manager's home on a
number of occasions and was informed that he was too ill to
come to the phone.
2. When the manger returned to work the worker telephoned
him. He was informed that, as the manager had just returned
from sick leave, he had no further news for him. The worker
then enquired about his wages. He was informed that he could
come in and collect same. When he collected his wages he
advised the manager that he was referring the matter to the
Labour Court. The next contact the Company had from the
worker was a letter from the Labour Relation's Commission.
3. The worker was paid all monies due to him. At no time
was he informed that he was being let go or sacked and it is
the Company's contention that the worker gave his notice the
day he collected his wages.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the events as retailed to the Court by both
parties, the Court must express its condemnation in the strongest
possible terms of the employers failure to protect a
worker from intimidation and abuse by a member of its staff
clearly in a position of some authority over him.
The result has been the loss of this young workers employment
through no fault of his own. In the circumstances the Court
recommends that he be paid full pay from 2nd June, 1992 to the
date of issue of this recommendation plus a sum of #250
compensation for the seriously unjust manner in which he was
treated.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
13th October, 1992 John O'Connell
M.D./M.H. ----------------
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Daughen, Court Secretary.