Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93158 Case Number: LCR14032 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: LEINSTER WAREHOUSING AND DISTRIBUTION LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is of the opinion that the dismissal of the worker concerned
was not unfair, and does not therefore recommend in his favour.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93158 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14032
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: LEINSTER WAREHOUSING AND DISTRIBUTION LIMITED
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed by the Company as a fork-lift driver
and general warehouse operative. On the 30th of January, 1993
and after 17 weeks of employment with the Company, the worker was
dismissed on the grounds that he "was not a suitable employee".
The worker disputes his dismissal. He contends that reasons cited
by the Company for his dismissal are "fabricated, and a pack of
lies".
The worker referred the dispute to the Rights Commissioner service
of the Labour Relations Commission but the Company was not
prepared to attend a Rights Commissioner's hearing. The worker
then referred the dispute to the Labour Court in accordance with
Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court
investigated the dispute on the 25th of March, 1993.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There was no valid reason for the dismissal. The first
reference given by the Company (29/1/93) is phrased in such a
way as to give the impression that the worker left the job of
his own accord. This is grossly misleading. The worker had
no desire at any time to quit the job.
2. The second reference provided by the Company (1/2/93)
clearly states that the worker's performance was satisfactory.
3. Claims by the Company that the worker left his duties
without permission are unreasonable. He went to the local
shop occasionally, which was normal practice for workers in
the warehouse.
4. The Company never warned the worker about his behaviour,
or that his work was unsatisfactory.
5. Occasional disagreements with management were as a result
of the fact that the worker was not paid for overtime, as
promised.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker frequently behaved in an aggressive and
threatening manner towards management. He also frequently
complained openly and publicly about his salary and about his
Christmas bonus. He was not justified in his complaints as he
received the salary that was agreed with him when he commenced
employment with the Company.
2. The worker's bad temper was previously known to the
Company Secretary/Director. The Company was willing to allow
him one chance in employment, which however, has not worked
out.
3. The worker left the warehouse area without permission on
several occasions. He was warned about this matter,
particularly in view of the fire/safety regulations that
required workers leaving the premises to notify their
superiors.
4. The worker was employed on the basis that there would be a
six-month probationary period. Due to general shortcomings in
his behaviour, he was dismissed after 17 weeks' employment.
His references were phrased as requested by the worker
(details supplied to the Court).
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is of the opinion that the dismissal of the worker concerned
was not unfair, and does not therefore recommend in his favour.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
________________________
6th April, 1993. Deputy Chairman
M.K./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.