Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94246 Case Number: LCR14559 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: QUALITY CERAMICS LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Dispute concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions from the parties and the
additional evidence from the claimant the Court has concluded that
the normal trust which is central to Employer/Employee relations
has been destroyed and accordingly the Court does not recommend
re-instatement.
In all the circumstances the Court recommends that the appellant
be paid a weeks wages in lieu of notice.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94246 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14559
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 2O(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
QUALITY CERAMICS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. Quality Ceramics Ltd. is based in Arklow, Co. Wicklow,
manufactures high quality bathroom suites and employs
approximately sixty people. The worker commenced
employment with the Company in the warehouse on the 16th
March, 1993. After six or seven months he was
transferred to the Casting Department where on the 10th
November, 1993 the worker claimed he injured his back by
slipping on the floor on the way to the canteen. He was
absent from work receiving occupational injury benefit
when the Company informed him that he was being let go.
2. The worker referred a claim for alleged unfair dismissal
to a Rights Commissioner but the Company objected to a
Rights Commissioner hearing the case. The worker
referred the dispute under Section 20(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969 to the Labour Court. The
Court investigated the dispute on the 1st June, 1994.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker never received verbal warnings about his
level of performance.
2. The worker was not working at another premises as
alleged by the Company. He was delivering a message to
his brother-in-law.
3. The worker was told he was on six months' probation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was employed on a twelve months probation
period. He was advised on a number of occasions that
his performance was below the required standard and
afforded an opportunity to improve.
2. He was working on another premises whilst on sick leave
from the Company.
3. The worker's work performance and conduct were
unsatisfactory and unacceptable to the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties and the
additional evidence from the claimant the Court has concluded that
the normal trust which is central to Employer/Employee relations
has been destroyed and accordingly the Court does not recommend
re-instatement.
In all the circumstances the Court recommends that the appellant
be paid a weeks wages in lieu of notice.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
September, 1994 ____________________________
P.O.C./M.M. Evelyn Owens
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Paul O'Connor, Court Secretary.