Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93587 Case Number: LCR14305 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: C & M EUROPE LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Dispute concerning an alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
Recommendation:
The Court notes that the Company accepts that the contract the
claimant signed included a commitment to pay shift rate and
overtime. The Court accepts that this contract was issued in
error. Nevertheless, the Court is of the view that the claimant
has a legitimate claim and accordingly recommends that he be paid
the amount due in respect of overtime and shift worked during the
period he was in employment.
With regard to the claim of unfair dismissal the Court is not
satisfied that the case is sustained. He was offered and refused
to sign a new contract and terminated his employment for this
reason.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93587 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14305
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
C & M EUROPE LIMITED
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning an alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The worker was employed by the Company as a supervisor
on 23rd June, 1993. The worker's employment ended on 18th
August, 1993.
2. The worker wrote to the Labour Court on 18th October,
1993, seeking an investigation into his alleged unfair
dismissal under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. A Labour Court investigation took place in Carlow
on 1st December, 1993.
3. Subsequent to the investigation, the Court also received
correspondence from the worker which it also considered.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was recruited as a supervisor and shortly
after taking up his position he signed a contract which
clearly allowed for the payment of shift and overtime. After
a number of weeks he brought it to the attention of the
Company that he was not being paid for overtime which he had
completed.
2. The worker claims that the Company's attitude to him
changed. It tried to force him to sign a new contract and
completed an audit of his work which showed him in a bad
light. The Company was saying to him that it would have to
let him go while at the same time trying to force him to sign
a new contract of employment which would worsen his
conditions of employment. The worker was baffled by the
Company's new attitude especially as one of his colleagues
enjoyed overtime and shift payments as a supervisor.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company recruited the worker following an interview
at which very specific conditions of employment were agreed.
Unfortunately the worker's contract was wrongly adapted from
that used for hourly-paid employees and included a commitment
to pay overtime and shift payments. When this was brought to
the attention of the Company, a new contract reflecting the
agreed conditions of employment was offered. The new
contract, including an offer of a future enhanced salary, was
rejected by the worker and he left of his own accord.
2. The Company did not let the worker go. It is true that
it had difficulties with the performance of the worker but it
was dealing with those through its audit of his performance
(details supplied). The Company offered the worker a
substantial salary increase at the end of his probationary
period if he showed an improvement in the performance of his
duties. The worker left the Company on 18th August, 1993 and
never returned.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that the Company accepts that the contract the
claimant signed included a commitment to pay shift rate and
overtime. The Court accepts that this contract was issued in
error. Nevertheless, the Court is of the view that the claimant
has a legitimate claim and accordingly recommends that he be paid
the amount due in respect of overtime and shift worked during the
period he was in employment.
With regard to the claim of unfair dismissal the Court is not
satisfied that the case is sustained. He was offered and refused
to sign a new contract and terminated his employment for this
reason.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
31st December, 1993 Evelyn Owens
J.F./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should by addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.