Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94486 Case Number: LCR14608 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: HORIZON T.V. DISTRIBUTION LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Dispute concerning an alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions from the parties and the
evidence given at the hearing the Court is satisfied that no
question of unfair dismissal could be inferred.
The claim therefore is not sustained by the Court.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94486 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14608
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
HORIZON T.V. DISTRIBUTION LIMITED
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning an alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The worker was employed as a signal test and service
engineer on 17th January, 1994. Prior to this, for
approximately 6 weeks, the worker was employed by the
Company to do installation work on a contract basis.
The worker's employment was terminated on 18th February,
1994.
2. By letter dated 26th September, 1994, the worker
submitted a claim for unfair dismissal under the terms
of Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
The Labour Court investigated the dispute in Tralee on
2nd November, 1994.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was dismissed abruptly without explanation on
18th February, 1994. When he sought an explanation, he
was verbally abused by his immediate superior. It was
over a week later before he was granted a meeting with
the General Manager.
2. The worker was not informed that his work was
unsatisfactory. Therefore, he was not given an
opportunity to improve on any alleged faults. The
worker, a qualified engineer, performed his duties to
the best of his abilities and to the standard of a
reasonable employer's expectation. The worker was
unfairly dismissed because of a personal dislike of him
by the contracts manager. The worker rejects the
reasons for dismissal which are now being put forward by
the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was dismissed because of an unsatisfactory
attitude to his work and his lack of ability to perform
his work in a competent manner during his employment.
2. The worker had poor response to learning his new role
and applying what he had been shown. He showed scant
regard for customers' property and he was frequently
late for work. The final decision to dismiss the worker
was taken when he arrived late for work with a smell of
alcohol from his breath. The Company concluded that the
worker was unsuitable for long term employment.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties and the
evidence given at the hearing the Court is satisfied that no
question of unfair dismissal could be inferred.
The claim therefore is not sustained by the Court.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
21st November, 1994 Evelyn Owens
J.F./D.T. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.