Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95133 Case Number: LCR14737 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: SUNSPEL LIMITED (TRADING AS EDDIE ROCKET'S) - and - A WORKER |
Dispute concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
The Court, given the information supplied by the parties in their
oral and written submissions, finds that the Company unfairly
dismissed the claimant.
The Court is seriously disturbed at the manner in which this
matter was dealt with by the management. Before any decision was
made to dismiss her, the worker was given no opportunity to make
her case in relation to the charge. It is the view of the Court
that she was denied fair procedures.
Given the nature of the alleged offence, the age of the claimant
and the period of service, the actions of the employer, the Court
considers, were excessive.
In all the circumstances, the Court, noting that the claimant
would consider herself vulnerable to further actions by the
employer should she be reinstated, recommends that she be paid the
sum of #250 in full and final settlement of her claim.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95133 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14737
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
SUNSPEL LIMITED (TRADING AS EDDIE ROCKET'S)
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker commenced her employment in Eddie Rocket's
(Phibsboro) on the 10th of November, 1994. On the 12th of
December, 1994, she was dismissed, on the grounds that she
had allegedly received product (i.e., a cup of coffee),
without having paid for it. The worker claims that it was
common practice for staff to have a coffee before commencing
their shifts. (At the time, the issue of payment for the
coffee was raised by her Manager and the worker paid for the
coffee and presented the receipt to the manager before
commencing her duties).
On the 9th of February, 1995, the worker requested that the
Labour Court investigate the dispute, in accordance with
Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The
Court carried out its investigation on the 11th of April,
1995.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The coffee was paid for and the manager appeared to be
quite satisfied once he received the relevant receipt.
2. It was common practice for workers to have a coffee
before commencement of duties. On raising the issue of
the receipt, the manager said that "a new rule" was
being enforced. A notice was subsequently displayed
concerning the issue of payment for product.
3. The chef, with whom the worker was having coffee, paid
for his at the same time as the worker, yet no
disciplinary action was taken against him.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker should have paid for the coffee. She was
only making recompense by paying after the manager
sought her receipt.
2. The worker was clearly guilty of gross misconduct, as
laid out in documentation given to her on her
commencement with the Company.
3. Dismissal took place only after the manager had
consulted with the area manager in the Head Office.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, given the information supplied by the parties in their
oral and written submissions, finds that the Company unfairly
dismissed the claimant.
The Court is seriously disturbed at the manner in which this
matter was dealt with by the management. Before any decision was
made to dismiss her, the worker was given no opportunity to make
her case in relation to the charge. It is the view of the Court
that she was denied fair procedures.
Given the nature of the alleged offence, the age of the claimant
and the period of service, the actions of the employer, the Court
considers, were excessive.
In all the circumstances, the Court, noting that the claimant
would consider herself vulnerable to further actions by the
employer should she be reinstated, recommends that she be paid the
sum of #250 in full and final settlement of her claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
26th April, 1995 Tom McGrath
M.K./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.