Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94305 Case Number: LCR14501 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: KELLY'S (CLONEE) LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Dispute concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
It is the view of the Court that the claimant in this case had his
employment terminated because there was insufficient work
available for a general worker.
The Court recommends that the employer make available to the
employee a suitable reference indicating that such was the case
and that he support the employee in this context in any enquiries
from prospective employers.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94305 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14501
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
KELLY'S (CLONEE) LIMITED
(represented by the Society of the Irish Motor Industry)
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker commenced his employment with the Company on the
22nd of November, 1993, in the capacity of Valeter/Car
Cleaner. In early January, 1994, he was transferred from
valeting to general/driving duties as the Company considered
that "he was not capable or competent in the job". The
worker claims that it was impossible to carry out valeting
duties efficiently due to the lack of essential materials
and equipment at his disposal. (In the meantime, the
valeting/cleaning duties were carried out by a contract
worker). The worker was dismissed on the 11th of March,
1994, on the grounds that there was insufficient work to
justify his being kept on.
He sought to have the matter investigated by a Rights
Commissioner, but the Company declined to attend an
investigation. The worker then referred the dispute to the
Labour Court on the 25th of May, 1994, in accordance with
Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The
Court investigated the dispute on the 1st of July, 1994.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Necessary materials were not supplied and equipment was
faulty (details supplied to the Court). This was raised
with management whose response was to provide inferior
quality materials. The equipment remained in an
unsatisfactory condition.
2. It was unreasonable to expect that a car be valeted in
15 minutes when the contract worker took between 1.50 and
2 hours for a new car and 2.50 to 4 hours for a secondhand
car.
3. There was no valid reason or warning given prior to the
worker's dismissal.
4. The worker has performed similar duties elsewhere for
six years. It is therefore unreasonable for the Company
to claim that he was "physically incapable" of
performing his duties.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. After a number of weeks, it was apparent that the worker
was not suitable. His work was slow and of poor
quality. After a further trial period, there was no
improvement.
2. The worker was given general/driving work to tide him
over the Christmas period. After the Company's busy
period (January/February) there was no requirement for a
general worker/driver. Accordingly, the worker was
given notice.
3. The parties parted on good terms. The worker was
treated with honesty and courtesy at all times.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is the view of the Court that the claimant in this case had his
employment terminated because there was insufficient work
available for a general worker.
The Court recommends that the employer make available to the
employee a suitable reference indicating that such was the case
and that he support the employee in this context in any enquiries
from prospective employers.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
12th July, 1994 Tom McGrath
M.K./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.