Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93467 Case Number: AD9375 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: D.C. SERVICES LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Appeal by the worker against Rights Commissioner's recommendation, No. S.T. 274/93, concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court
does not find grounds to justify any change in the Rights
Commissioners recommendation and therefore upholds it.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93467 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD7593
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9)
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: D.C. SERVICES LIMITED
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the worker against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation, No. S.T. 274/93, concerning alleged unfair
dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company in
June, 1992. The Company which was set-up in May, 1992, is
involved in industrial racking. In January, 1993, the two
shareholders involved in the Company went their separate ways and
set-up individually. Approximately 1 week later the employment of
the worker was terminated. The worker claims that he was unfairly
dismissed. He referred the matter to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. On 28th July, 1993, the Rights
Commissioner recommended as follows:
"Despite the lapse of some weeks since the investigation the
Employer representative has been unable to have the claimant
reinstated. I recommend that the claimant was in fact unfairly
dismissed. He did not receive fair procedures. I am unable to
recommend his preferred form of redress - reinstatement - for
obvious reasons, instead I recommend that he receives #500
compensation for the loss of his job and income".
The Rights Commissioner's recommendation was appealed by the
worker to the Labour Court on 5th August 1993. The Court heard
the appeal on 30th August, 1993.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker co-operated fully with management during the
course of his employment. He had a good attendance record and
was always willing to work overtime and to do country work.
2. The worker received no complaints from management in
relation to his work and finds it unacceptable that a
colleague with less service has been retained at his expense.
3. The worker had great difficulty in obtaining monies due
and his P45 from the Company. The worker is the victim of a
disagreement between the partners and has been unfairly
treated. He has given good service and should be reinstated.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. A contract handled by the shareholder who was directly
involved with the worker concerned was cancelled in January,
1993. The Company insisted that any future business contracts
exclude the shareholder. Following the loss of this contract
the partnership ceased.
2. The loss of the contract resulted in the dismissal of
the worker concerned.
3. The Company has not traded since January, 1993. An
accountant brought in to sort out its affairs has had
difficulty in obtaining information in relation to the
worker's employment record.
4. The worker has been offered some casual work but no
opportunities exist in the present circumstances for permanent
employment.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court
does not find grounds to justify any change in the Rights
Commissioners recommendation and therefore upholds it.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
21st September, 1993 ---------------
F.B./J.C. Chairman