Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94248 Case Number: LCR14478 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: THE ROUNDABOUT LIMITED - and - WORKER |
Dispute concerning the alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
Recommendation:
The Company made no appearance at the hearing and made no
submission in defence of their actions despite invitations to
attend. The Court having heard the submission of the claimant
find he was treated in a most unfair manner.
The Court finds it reprehensible that the Company made no attempt
to give any reason to the employee for his dismissal. Further the
management, in a cynical exercise, and in the knowledge that the
Company had given a good reference to the employee were not
prepared to support him in his application for another post.
The actions of the Company (management and owner) in this case are
contrary to the actions of any reasonable employer and must be
deplored.
Not withstanding the treatment received the claimant sought and
the Court would recommend that he be reinstated in his former
position. Failing being reinstated it is the recommendation of
the Court that he be paid a sum of #2,500 in compensation.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94248 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14478
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
THE ROUNDABOUT LIMITED
AND
WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The worker was hired in September 1993 as Manager of the
Roundabout Public House. The Roundabout is divided into
a Disco Bar and a Sports Bar. The worker was
responsible for the general running of the Sports Bar.
His responsibilities also included the management of
staff, cash and lodgements, and bar work.
2. The worker was paid a basic salary and a bonus
calculated as a percentage of the increase in turnover
from the previous year. In January, 1994, the worker's
bonus payment was changed by agreement between the
employer and the worker (details supplied).
3. On 25th February, 1994, the employer refused, without
giving any reason, to pay the worker his bonus. The
worker immediately resigned his employment but was asked
to return a number of days later. The worker continued
his employment without incident until he was let go on
22nd April, 1994.
4. On 29th April, 1994, the worker referred a case for
alleged unfair dismissal to the Labour Court under
Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. A
Labour Court investigation took place on 3rd June, 1994.
The Company was not represented at the investigation.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was unfairly dismissed. He did not receive
notice or reason for his dismissal. If there was any
problem with the performance of his duties, it was not
in evidence in either his relationship with his employer
or the reference which he received.
2. Although the worker received a good reference, the
employer stated that the worker left of his own accord.
This is very difficult to explain to prospective
employers (details supplied). The worker has not yet
been able to secure an alternative position.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Company made no appearance at the hearing and made no
submission in defence of their actions despite invitations to
attend. The Court having heard the submission of the claimant
find he was treated in a most unfair manner.
The Court finds it reprehensible that the Company made no attempt
to give any reason to the employee for his dismissal. Further the
management, in a cynical exercise, and in the knowledge that the
Company had given a good reference to the employee were not
prepared to support him in his application for another post.
The actions of the Company (management and owner) in this case are
contrary to the actions of any reasonable employer and must be
deplored.
Not withstanding the treatment received the claimant sought and
the Court would recommend that he be reinstated in his former
position. Failing being reinstated it is the recommendation of
the Court that he be paid a sum of #2,500 in compensation.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
20th June, 1994 Tom McGrath
J.F./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.