Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93172 Case Number: LCR14066 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: RATIONEL WINDOWS - and - A WORKER |
Alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court
does not regard the claimant as having been unfairly dismissed.
Accordingly the Court does not find that the claimant has a right
to reinstatement.
However should a suitable vacancy occur in the Company in the
future, the Court recommends that the Company, on goodwill
grounds, give sympathetic consideration to his re-employment.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93172 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14066
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: RATIONEL WINDOWS
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company on
the 19th March, 1992. He was dismissed on the 10th April, 1992.
He claimed that his dismissal was unfair and referred the issue to
a Rights Commissioner for investigation. The Company objected to
such an investigation. On the 10th March, 1993 the worker
referred the dispute to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of
the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the
Court's recommendation. A Court hearing was held in Tullamore on
the 20th April, 1993.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. On the 9th April, 1992 the Company deducted income tax
(approximately #22) from the worker's earnings for the week
ending 2nd April, 1992. He queried this action with the
Company's accountant. He considered that he was not liable
for tax during this period as the new tax year did not
commence until 6th April, 1992. The employer came into the
office and advised the worker that if he did not like the
Company's method of payment he could leave. The worker left
the office.
2. Having checked his facts and believing that he was still
correct, the worker went to see the employer on 10th April.
The employer again reiterated that if the worker did not like
the Company system he could leave. At finishing time that
evening the employer handed the worker his P45. He was
dismissed in a most unfair and unjust manner.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Since it commenced operation, the Company has had a policy
that income received by a worker in a particular tax year is
treated as taxable income within the same tax year. The
Company's auditors have confirmed that this practice is
correct and totally acceptable.
2. The worker concerned did not agree with this policy. He
refused to accept the Company accountant's decision to adhere
to the system in operation, and which is applied to the total
workforce. The worker was advised by Management to contact
the Revenue Commissioners to verify that Company policy of tax
deduction was correct. He refused to accept this advice. The
worker's employment with the Company ceased on the 10th April
because he disagreed with Company policy on the payment of
wages.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court
does not regard the claimant as having been unfairly dismissed.
Accordingly the Court does not find that the claimant has a right
to reinstatement.
However should a suitable vacancy occur in the Company in the
future, the Court recommends that the Company, on goodwill
grounds, give sympathetic consideration to his re-employment.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
__________________
3rd May, 1993. Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.