Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93427 Case Number: LCR14339 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: FORMULA K LIMITED - and - MR. PHILLIP QUIRKE |
Dispute concerning an alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
The Court has considered all of the views expressed by the
claimant at the hearing. The Court has also considered the
correspondence sent to the Rights Commissioner's Office.
The employer did not attend the Court and was not represented.
Accordingly the Court was not in a position to question the
employer on the statement made in his correspondence, nor was the
claimant in a position to question the employer.
The Court finds the treatment of the claimant to be unacceptable.
He was denied fair procedures, not offered any opportunity to be
officially advised why he was being dismissed, to make any defence
or to be represented. Given the circumstances of his dismissal
the Court recommends that he be paid the sum of #400 in
compensation.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93427 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14339
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
FORMULA K LIMITED
AND
MR. PHILLIP QUIRKE
SUBJECT:
1. 1. Dispute concerning an alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company operated a go-karting centre where the
worker was employed as a security guard. On 9th March, 1993,
the worker was dismissed. He was not given a reason for his
dismissal. The worker discovered from another employee that
he had been accused of taking money from customers and
pocketing it.
2. The worker sought a Labour Court investigation on 21st
June 1993 under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. A Labour Court investigation took place on 28th
January, 1994 (the earliest date suitable to the worker).
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was never questioned about the allegation of
stealing which was made against him. He was dismissed
without being given an opportunity to respond to the
allegations. The worker has not worked since the date of his
dismissal.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered all of the views expressed by the
claimant at the hearing. The Court has also considered the
correspondence sent to the Rights Commissioner's Office.
The employer did not attend the Court and was not represented.
Accordingly the Court was not in a position to question the
employer on the statement made in his correspondence, nor was the
claimant in a position to question the employer.
The Court finds the treatment of the claimant to be unacceptable.
He was denied fair procedures, not offered any opportunity to be
officially advised why he was being dismissed, to make any defence
or to be represented. Given the circumstances of his dismissal
the Court recommends that he be paid the sum of #400 in
compensation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
11th February, 1994. Tom McGrath
J.F./A.L. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.