Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92182 Case Number: AD92199 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: CITY FLOWERS LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. B.C. 472/91 concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
6. Having considered the appeal by the worker concerned and in
the absence of any representation by the Company the Court is of
the opinion that the worker was in fact unfairly dismissed and
therefore that the appeal should be allowed.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92182 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD19992
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: CITY FLOWERS LIMITED
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. B.C.
472/91 concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker commenced employment with the Company on 1st March,
1991. He was employed as a salesperson to develop new business
particularly in rural areas. He was dismissed from his employment
on 15th November, 1991.
3. The worker referred a claim for unfair dismissal to a Rights
Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. The Rights
Commissioner investigated the dispute on 28th January, 1992. The
worker did not attend the Rights Commissioner's investigation and
when contacted informed the Rights Commissioner that he did not
receive any notification. He was interviewed by the Rights
Commissioner on 3rd February, 1992. The Rights Commissioner
issued the following recommendation dated 20th February, 1992.
"In the light of the above and having given very full and
careful consideration to the points made by the claimant and
the responses to the overall claim made by the Company I have
come to the conclusion that City Flowers did not act unfairly
in terminating the worker's employment on the date in
question.
I therefore recommend accordingly".
4. The worker appealed the Rights Commissioner's recommendation
to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on 7th September,
1992. The Company did not attend and was not represented at the
Court hearing.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The worker was employed to locate and develop business in
rural areas. His duties were expanded in that he was
responsible for buying as well as selling product. He
expanded the business through hard work and effort.
2. The employer established a van and salesman to service the
areas developed by the worker. The worker considers that
the employer then decided that his services were no longer
required and used an occasion of the worker being on sick
leave as a reason to dismiss him.
3. The worker had a good work record and never received any
complaints about any aspect of his work performance.
DECISION:
6. Having considered the appeal by the worker concerned and in
the absence of any representation by the Company the Court is of
the opinion that the worker was in fact unfairly dismissed and
therefore that the appeal should be allowed.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_________________
21st September, 1992. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.