Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9436 Case Number: LCR14357 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: H. C. CAHILL LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Alleged Unfair dismissal of Warehouse/Transport Manager.
Recommendation:
The Court finds the worker concerned in this dispute was unfairly
treated in the manner in which his dismissal was effected.
The Court recommends that he be paid the sum of #500 in
compensation and that he be furnished with a suitable reference.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9436 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14357
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
H. C. CAHILL LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES)
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged Unfair dismissal of Warehouse/Transport Manager.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the delivery of frozen foods. The
worker concerned commenced employment with the Company on
15th February, 1993. He was to replace another worker as
Warehouse / Transport Manager in June, 1993, following the
retirement of that worker.
The main duties of the worker concerned were to assist the
storeman in loading and unloading vans and arranging orders.
He was also responsible for stock control and stock-takings
and he covered for drivers who were absent from work. In
July, 1993 the worker concerned took over the duties of
Warehouse / Transport Manager.
On 5th November, 1993 the worker was dismissed from his
employment. The worker offered to continue working with the
Company as a driver but was told that he had not been
employed as a driver.
The worker claimed that he was unfairly dismissed and he
referred the dispute to the Labour Court on 17th January,
1994 under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1969. The worker agreed to accept the recommendation of the
Court. A Labour Court hearing took place on 14th February,
1994.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker undertook a variety of work with the Company.
He got on well with all staff.
2. When asked by the Company manager to make improvements
in the running of the Company, the worker reduced overtime
from 75 hours per week to approximately 40 hours per week.
He also arranged for vans and lorries to be locked up at
night and at weekends.
3. One assistant storeman and two drivers have been taken
on by the Company since the worker commenced his employment.
They are still employed with the Company. The worker
concerned was willing to revert to working as a driver but
the Company refused this option. The worker was advised by
Company Manager that he was a good worker. No explanation
was given for his dismissal.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker concerned was advised at the end of August,
1993 that the Company was not happy with his performance and
that an improvement was expected. He has also spoken to
about his appearance. The worker refused to give his home
telephone number to management even though he had
responsibility for the Company alarms and consequential
call-outs.
2. The worker had an accident with a Company van. He had
the van repaired without informing anyone and charged the
bill to the Company. On another occasion he got another
worker in the Company to issue him with a #20 voucher. This
was done without authority from anyone in the Company.
3. The worker was unsuitable for the job of Warehouse /
Transport Manager. His performance did not improve despite
being given an opportunity to do so. The worker did not set
a good example for other workers and the Company was left
with no option but to dismiss him.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court finds the worker concerned in this dispute was unfairly
treated in the manner in which his dismissal was effected.
The Court recommends that he be paid the sum of #500 in
compensation and that he be furnished with a suitable reference.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
2nd March, 1994. Tom McGrath
C.O'N./A.L. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.