Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92480 Case Number: LCR13812 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: DRIMNAGH MOTORS LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Claim by the worker that he was unfairly dismissed from his employment.
Recommendation:
5. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary the Court on
the basis of the submission made by the worker is satisfied that
he was unfairly treated by the Company. The very minimum he is
entitled to receive is full pay for all the time he worked with
the Company and the Court further considers he should receive one
further weeks pay in lieu of notice.
The Court therefore recommends that the Company makes the above
payments.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92480 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13812
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: DRIMNAGH MOTORS LIMITED
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the worker that he was unfairly dismissed from his
employment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed by the Company to work in Drimnagh
Snooker Hall which it owns. He was given one and a half hours
instruction on the operation of the snooker hall before he
commenced employment on 8th April, 1992. The worker's employment
was terminated on 15th April, 1992 following an incident involving
cash (details supplied to the Court). He did not receive any
wages for the week he worked.
3. The worker referred a claim for unfair dismissal to a Rights
Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. 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. The worker agreed to be bound by
the Court's recommendation. A Court hearing took place on 9th
October, 1992. The Court was informed by letter dated 7th
October, 1992 that the Company would not attend or be represented
at the Court hearing.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker left another job to work for the Company as
there was less travelling involved.
2. The instructions given were inadequate as during the
course of the week the worker found that the patrons knew more
about the running of the snooker hall than the staff employed
there.
3. The worker considers that the incident involving the cash
was engineered so as to effect his dismissal as he
subsequently found out that the Company do not like to pay
P.R.S.I. or tax and he was due to bring his P.45 in that week.
4. Some of the workers' previous employments involved
handling cash and he was always found to be a trusted worker.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary the Court on
the basis of the submission made by the worker is satisfied that
he was unfairly treated by the Company. The very minimum he is
entitled to receive is full pay for all the time he worked with
the Company and the Court further considers he should receive one
further weeks pay in lieu of notice.
The Court therefore recommends that the Company makes the above
payments.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
___________________
28th October, 1992. Deputy Chairman.
M.D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Daughen, Court Secretary.