Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94414 Case Number: AD9486 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: JENSON HOTEL - and - A WORKER |
Appeal by the worker against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. CW96/94.
Recommendation:
The Court has considered all of the views of the parties as
expressed at the hearing.
The Court upholds the findings of the Rights Commissioner and
rejects the appeal of the claimant.
The Court so decides.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94414 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD8694
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
JENSON HOTEL
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the worker against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. CW96/94.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Hotel as a
barman in February, 1994. He was dismissed on the 15th
April, 1994. He claimed that his dismissal was unfair.
Management rejected the claim. The dispute was referred to a
Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On
the 29th June, 1994 the Rights Commissioner issued his
recommendation as follows:-
"I recommend that the Hotel offers and the worker accepts
the sum of #320 in settlement of this dispute and of all
matters relating to the termination of his employment".
(The worker was named in the recommendation).
On the 8th August, 1994 the worker appealed the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation to the Labour Court under
Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The
Court heard the appeal on the 9th November, 1994.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. On the 15th April, 1994 the worker was engaged on a
stock check from 2 to 4 p.m. At 8.30 p.m. he returned
to his bar duties. He was called to the staff room at
10.45 p.m. where he was accused of stealing, verbally
abused, and was arbitrarily dismissed. The worker was
not given an opportunity to explain his position.
2. The worker denies being involved in stealing. He was
given no reference and has not been able to obtain other
employment. He has been most unfairly and unjustly
treated.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Hotel engaged a firm of private investigators to
report on the worker concerned, while he was in
employment as a barman. The report indicated that the
worker was involved in the misappropriation of monies
while serving customers (details supplied to the Court).
2. On the basis of the information in the report the
Company was left with no alternative but to dismiss the
worker. Management understood that a worker who was
involved in stealing could be instantly dismissed and
took this course of action. Other staff were not
present as the Hotel did not wish to cause the worker
further embarrassment.
DECISION:
The Court has considered all of the views of the parties as
expressed at the hearing.
The Court upholds the findings of the Rights Commissioner and
rejects the appeal of the claimant.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
12th December, 1994 Tom McGrath
T.O'D./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman