Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92694 Case Number: AD932 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: LEISUREPLEX LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Appeal by the worker against Rights Commissioner's recommendation B.C. 308/92 concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is satisfied that the facts complained of were real
and required management's attention.
Having considered the substance of the incident and given the
history of warnings, the Court is of the view that management had
grounds to terminate the employment.
However the Court does not consider that instant dismissal was
appropriate in this case. Therefore, the #250 should be treated
as payment in lieu of notice and paid immediately.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and upholds the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation as amended in the above terms.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92694 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD293
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: LEISUREPLEX LIMITED
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the worker against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation B.C. 308/92 concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. Leisureplex is an entertainments Company, providing various
games facilities such as Quasar and Bowling. The worker commenced
employment with the Company on the 2nd of April, 1992. He was
dismissed on the 22nd of July, 1992 on the grounds that he had
been in breach of the Company rule concerning 'gross misconduct'.
The worker contends that he was unfairly dismissed and the dispute
was investigated by a Rights Commissioner who issued the following
recommendation:
"RECOMMENDATION
In the light of the above I must hold that the worker was
unfairly dismissed on the date in question. I must also hold
that his own previous behaviour and injudicious actions on
the date in question contributed to his own difficulties.
My recommendation is that Leisureplex Ltd. should pay to the
worker the sum of #250 and that this be accepted by him in
full and final settlement of all claims on the Company in
relation to his employment and its termination".
( The worker was referred to by name in the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation.)
The worker appealed against the recommendation on the grounds that
the compensation awarded is insufficient. The Labour Court heard
the appeal on the 15th January, 1993.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Incidents about which the Company complained were greatly
exaggerated and did not warrant the worker's dismissal.
(Details supplied to the Court).
2. An incident at the Quasar Desk (the signing-in a group of
children) led to the worker's suspension. The Company
complained that the 'briefing' and 'signing-in' of the group
took too long. Given the size of the group (35), fifteen
minutes was a reasonable length of time for 'briefing' and
'signing-in'.
3. The Company acted in an improper manner when they issued a
verbal warning to the worker, for remarks that he made in
jest.
4. The excellent reference issued by the Company is evidence
of the worker's good character and working ability.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker abused a customer who had made a complaint to a
supervisor concerning his (the worker's) conduct. (Details
supplied to the Court). Despite regular warnings, the worker
was frequently guilty of using bad language to customers and
colleagues. (Details supplied to the Court). Under the Crew
Guidelines, a worker is liable to be dismissed for such
behaviour.
2. The worker had a bad attitude to fellow workers concerning
cleaning-up after shifts. He also showed lack of respect for
the Company uniform and failed to acknowledge procedures and
shift responsibilities. (Details supplied to the Court).
DECISION:
5. The Court is satisfied that the facts complained of were real
and required management's attention.
Having considered the substance of the incident and given the
history of warnings, the Court is of the view that management had
grounds to terminate the employment.
However the Court does not consider that instant dismissal was
appropriate in this case. Therefore, the #250 should be treated
as payment in lieu of notice and paid immediately.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and upholds the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation as amended in the above terms.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
_____________________
22nd January, 1993. Deputy Chairman.
M.K./J.C.