Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9489 Case Number: LCR14374 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: WIGODERS - and - A WORKER |
Alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions of the parties, which were
conflicting to a significant degree, the Court, on balance, does
not consider that the claimant was unfairly dismissed.
Nevertheless, the Court finds that there were unusual factors in
this case which, though not established as the responsibility of
the claimant, were material to the decision to dispense with his
services. In the circumstances, the Court recommends that the
Company make an ex-gratia payment of #500 to the claimant, to
finally dispose of the issue.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9489 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14374
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
WIGODERS
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker, who is a specialist in soft furnishings and
wall-papers, was recruited by the Company as a sales
assistant on the 11th of May, 1993. The worker's employment
with the Company ceased on the 27th of November, 1993. He
claims that he was unfairly dismissed. The Company's
position is that he actually offered his resignation, which
was accepted. The worker sought to have the dispute
investigated by a Right's Commissioner but the Company
declined to attend an investigation. The worker then
referred the dispute to the Labour Court, on the 3rd of
February, 1994, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court investigated the
dispute on the 10th of March, 1994.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Sometime after the worker was employed by the Company, a
new manageress was transferred to the branch. She took an
immediate dislike to him and ridiculed and demoralised him in
many ways. In late November, the worker was approached by
the Personnel Manager who raised the issue of malicious
rumours that had been circulating in the branch. Consequent
on this meeting, the worker was dismissed and was asked to
leave the shop without working up notice. The worker was
subsequently informed by the Personnel Manager that it was
the manageress who had alleged that he, the worker, had
circulated the rumours. He was also informed that the
manageress "did not like" him, and that there was "nothing
that could be done about it".
2. During his term with the Company, the worker had the
highest volume of sales in the Company and was never absent
from work. He left a previous employment to take up the
position with the Company and believes that he would be still
in employment with his former job had he not joined the
Company.
3. The worker is an honest and hard working person who has
suffered considerable shock and distress arising from his
dismissal.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. During the worker's appraisal, in September, 1993, his
manager did not mention his management potential, or
promotional opportunities for him. His attitude and
performance seemed to deteriorate afterwards. He resented
his manager checking through his order-book and there was
ongoing friction between the two.
2. In early November, 1993, the worker offered his
resignation to the Personnel Manager, who, suspecting that
domestic problems might have prompted the offer of
resignation, was reluctant to accept it. Shortly after, with
tension mounting in the shop and having considered the
alternatives, including part-time work, the Personnel Manager
accepted the worker's resignation. At no time did the worker
express the view that he was being victimised. The parting
appeared to be amicable.
3. All members of staff were interviewed concerning the
rumours that were being circulated around the branch.
4. Since the worker's departure, he has misrepresented
remarks made by the Personnel Manager to him, in conversation
with former colleagues outside the Company's Walkinstown
branch, causing great distress to the Personnel Manager.
5. The worker resigned from the Company by his own choice
and was not 'unfairly dismissed'.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties, which were
conflicting to a significant degree, the Court, on balance, does
not consider that the claimant was unfairly dismissed.
Nevertheless, the Court finds that there were unusual factors in
this case which, though not established as the responsibility of
the claimant, were material to the decision to dispense with his
services. In the circumstances, the Court recommends that the
Company make an ex-gratia payment of #500 to the claimant, to
finally dispose of the issue.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
18th March, 1994. Kevin Heffernan
M.K./A.L. _______________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.