Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94245 Case Number: LCR14551 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: CELTIC HAMPERS LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Dispute concerning the alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court is of
the view that the claimant was treated unfairly in that he was
instantly dismissed and accordingly recommends he be paid a sum of
#200 compensation in full and final settlement of his claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94245 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14551
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
CELTIC HAMPERS LIMITED
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The worker commenced employment with the Company in
October, 1993. On 16th December, 1993, he reported for
work at 9.00 a.m. at the main warehouse having spent a
number of days previous in another warehouse. He was
waiting for an instruction as to what work he was to do
at approximately 10.00 a.m., when the manager entered
the warehouse. The worker claims that he was subjected
to verbal abuse from the manager and then dismissed.
The Company rejects this allegation stating that the
worker left of his own free will.
2. The dispute was referred by the worker to a Rights
Commissioner but the Company objected to a Rights
Commissioner hearing. The worker referred the dispute
to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court investigated
the dispute on 11th August, 1994 (the earliest date
suitable to the parties).
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker had moved from one warehouse to another and
was waiting for an instruction as to what duties he was
to perform. The manager subjected him to verbal abuse
and then dismissed him because he had not commenced
work.
2. The worker was given no chance to defend himself.
3. The worker was not told, prior to reporting back to the
main warehouse, what duties he was to perform.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker had worked in the warehouse for 6 weeks
previous and was well aware of his duties on returning
to these premises.
2. A number of workers returned to the main warehouse to
work that morning and the manager had told them the
previous day what duties they were to perform.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court is of
the view that the claimant was treated unfairly in that he was
instantly dismissed and accordingly recommends he be paid a sum of
#200 compensation in full and final settlement of his claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
25th August, 1994 Evelyn Owens
P.O'C./M.M. __________________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Paul O'Connor, Court Secretary.