Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9368 Case Number: LCR14016 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: EUROPA PRESS LIMITED - and - A WORKER;DANIEL C. MAHER ALLEN AND COMPANY SOLICITORS |
Claim for compensation following alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and takes the view that in the light of the critical conditions
prevailing in the Company at the time of his appointment, of which
the worker was aware, that the claim for compensation is not
warranted. The Court does not therefore recommend concession of
the worker's claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9368 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14016
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: EUROPA PRESS LIMITED
and
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY DANIEL C. MAHER ALLEN AND COMPANY SOLICITORS)
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for compensation following alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is engaged in general and colour printing. The
worker concerned was employed as a sales-manager on the 9th of
June, 1992. His conditions of employment provided for a salary of
#27,000 per annum, plus 1% sales-commission. On the 29th of June,
1992, the Chairman of the Company informed the worker that he
could not afford to pay him the agreed salary. He suggested to
the worker that he accept a decrease in salary, to #12,000 p.a.,
plus 5% commission. The worker rejected the reduction in salary
and was dismissed on the 3rd of July, 1992. He is seeking
compensation of full pay (#519.23) for each of the twelve weeks
that he was unemployed, until the date he obtained new employment
(the 26th of September, 1992). The total claim amounts to
#6,230.76.
The employer rejects the claim for compensation. The dispute was
referred to the Labour Court on the 25th of January, 1993 in
accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1969.
The Court investigated the dispute on the 5th of March, 1993 (the
earliest date convenient to both parties).
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The terms and conditions of employment, as set out in the
Company's letter dated 4th of June, 1993, state that the
worker's employment was on a trial basis for three to six
months. He would not have taken the position without a fixed
trial-period.
2. He left his previous employment which had a salary in
excess of #12,000 because of the high salary offered to him in
the Company's letter.
3. Two weeks and four days is an insufficient length of time
in which to expect a large increase in sales. It would
normally take six weeks at least to bring about the injection
of business required by the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was interviewed three times. He was aware that
the Company was in difficulty, and required an immediate
injection of sales.
2. The worker was a senior salesman. It is the norm in the
business for a senior salesman to bring a 'block of sales'
with him when transferring from one employer to another.
3. There was no appreciable immediate injection of sales.
The Company was therefore not in a position to afford the
worker's high salary. It would be unreasonable to dismiss
other employees, who had been with the Company for years, in
order to retain a highly-paid senior salesman.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and takes the view that in the light of the critical conditions
prevailing in the Company at the time of his appointment, of which
the worker was aware, that the claim for compensation is not
warranted. The Court does not therefore recommend concession of
the worker's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
___________________
26th March, 1993 Deputy Chairman.
M.K./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.