Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93286 Case Number: LCR14103 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: DISTRIBUTION SERVICES TEORANTA - and - A WORKER |
Alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
4. Once again the Court finds itself in a situation where in the
case of a complaint of unfair treatment the employer is not
prepared to attend the Court to justify the action taken. In this
particular case it is clear from the uncontested statement of the
employee that the Company, prior to the decision to dismiss him,
gave him no opportunity in natural justice to state his case.
The fact that the employee was only employed for a short period of
time does not absolve the Company from giving him fair treatment.
Accordingly in the circumstances the Court recommends that in view
of the unfair manner in which he was dismissed he be paid the sum
of #500 compensation.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93286 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14103
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: DISTRIBUTION SERVICES TEORANTA
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company in
September, 1992. On 5th November, 1992, while installing a
machine in the Pfizer International Bank he was involved in an
incident in which he claims he was attacked by a colleague. On
Monday 9th November, 1992, he was asked to explain the incident by
management. The worker claims that the management accepted his
explanation but, as it was Company policy following incidents of
this nature, he was suspended with pay pending further
investigation. On 11th November, 1992, the worker was informed by
letter that the Company had terminated his employment. An
invitation to have the matter investigated by a Rights
Commissioner was rejected by the Company.
The worker referred the matter to the Labour Court on 23rd March,
1993 under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and
agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. The Court
hearing took place on 18th May, 1993. The Company informed the
Labour Court by letter dated 12th May, 1993 that it would not be
represented at the Court hearing.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. During the incident of 5th November, 1992, the worker
concerned was head-butted and punched in the face. He did not
retaliate.
2. Management were aware on the 9th November, 1992, of
bruising on the worker's face as a result of the incident.
3. It is unacceptable that the worker concerned has been
dismissed because he was assaulted by a colleague during the
course of his duty.
4. The treatment meted out to the worker is unfair and has
affected his life and working career dramatically.
RECOMMENDATION:
4. Once again the Court finds itself in a situation where in the
case of a complaint of unfair treatment the employer is not
prepared to attend the Court to justify the action taken. In this
particular case it is clear from the uncontested statement of the
employee that the Company, prior to the decision to dismiss him,
gave him no opportunity in natural justice to state his case.
The fact that the employee was only employed for a short period of
time does not absolve the Company from giving him fair treatment.
Accordingly in the circumstances the Court recommends that in view
of the unfair manner in which he was dismissed he be paid the sum
of #500 compensation.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
____________________
11th June, 1993. Deputy Chairman.
F.B./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.