Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94439 Case Number: LCR14617 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: AN BORD TRACHTALA - and - A WORKER;PAMELA M. MADIGAN AND CO. SOLICITORS |
Alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions, both written and oral, of the
parties, the Court is of the opinion that the worker was treated
unfairly by the Bord, and recommends that he be paid the sum of
#750 by way of compensation.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94439 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14617
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
AN BORD TRACHTALA
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY PAMELA M. MADIGAN AND CO. SOLICITORS)
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker commenced working with the Bord on 28th June,
1993. He was employed in the Dispatch Department. His
duties included dealing with post, deliveries, setting up the
conference room and, on occasions, driving the Chief
Executive's car.
On the 14th June, 1994, the worker was given one week's
notice. The reason given was cut-backs and, that the Bord
needed someone with more experience in sound and audio
equipment. The worker felt that he was unfairly dismissed
and referred the dispute to the Labour Court on 12th August,
1994, under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 21st November,
1994 (the earliest date suitable to the parties).
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker had approached his manager on a number of
occasions regarding his contract which he believed would
be for two or three years. Including holidays due to
him, the worker was one day short of twelve months
continuous employment.
2. The worker was given no training, in the use of video
and sound equipment, which would have made him familiar
with the work required. He was replaced after two days
by a worker who, in turn, was later replaced. Those two
workers are still in the Dispatch Department.
3. Two weeks before he was dismissed, the worker re-taxed
and insured his van, at a cost of #500, so that it would
be available for official duties when the official
vehicle was unavailable. He did not intend keeping the
van for his own personal use.
BORD'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was employed on a temporary basis. There
were no permanent positions available at the time of his
appointment, which was for a maximum of one year.
2. The worker's duties in the conference room had expanded
considerably. The worker concerned did not possess the
necessary skills and expertise for the work involved.
The worker who replaced him has experience in audio
visual and sound equipment.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions, both written and oral, of the
parties, the Court is of the opinion that the worker was treated
unfairly by the Bord, and recommends that he be paid the sum of
#750 by way of compensation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
2nd December, 1994 Evelyn Owens
C.O'N./D.T. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.