Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95539 Case Number: LCR15046 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: TOP SECURITY LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Alleged unfair dismissal
Recommendation:
The Employer did not attend the Court hearing and therefore the
only evidence before the Court was that of the claimant.
The claimant stated to the Court that the only explanation he
could put forward for his dismissal was an incident that happened
on the site of a client of the Company. He claimed he had acted
properly at all times and had reported the particular problem on
an hourly basis to his base and asked for assistance.
In the absence of any other explanation, and even if this was the
reason, the manner of the dismissal both in the way it was
conveyed, in the back of a van, and the transfer of responsibility
between members of management when asked for an explanation was
totally unacceptable.
The claimant was given no explanation for his dismissal and no
opportunity to make representation on his own behalf. Indeed, his
supervisor, when handing him his dismissal letter in the van,
disclaimed any knowledge of its contents, while his manager when
subsequently confronted claimed the supervisor had dismissed the
claimant.
The Court finds the dismissal totally unreasonable and accordingly
recommends that the Company pay the claimant a once of payment of
£500 as compensation.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Pierce Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95539 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15046
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
TOP SECURITY LIMITED
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
Alleged unfair dismissal
BACKGROUND:
The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company as
a static guard on 3rd March, 1995. He operated at various
locations before securing a permanent position as gate-man at
a client (C & C) of the Company. His employment was
terminated on 2nd August, 1995.
The worker claimed that he had been unfairly dismissed and
referred the matter to the Labour Court on 29th September,
1995 under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 7th December,
1995.
The Company declined an invitation to attend a Rights
Commissioner's hearing. The Company was not represented at
the Court hearing.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
1. On the night prior to his dismissal the worker was unable to
perform certain duties due to the absence of a relief
gate-man.
2. Management refused to put forward any explanation for the
worker's dismissal and both management and supervisory staff
refused to accept responsibility for the decision to dismiss
him.
3. The worker co-operated fully with management during the
course of his employment. Management has acknowledged this.
4. The worker enjoyed his work and carried out his duties in a
conscientious fashion. The manner in which his dismissal
took place has caused him embarrassment and financial
hardship.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Employer did not attend the Court hearing and therefore the
only evidence before the Court was that of the claimant.
The claimant stated to the Court that the only explanation he
could put forward for his dismissal was an incident that happened
on the site of a client of the Company. He claimed he had acted
properly at all times and had reported the particular problem on
an hourly basis to his base and asked for assistance.
In the absence of any other explanation, and even if this was the
reason, the manner of the dismissal both in the way it was
conveyed, in the back of a van, and the transfer of responsibility
between members of management when asked for an explanation was
totally unacceptable.
The claimant was given no explanation for his dismissal and no
opportunity to make representation on his own behalf. Indeed, his
supervisor, when handing him his dismissal letter in the van,
disclaimed any knowledge of its contents, while his manager when
subsequently confronted claimed the supervisor had dismissed the
claimant.
The Court finds the dismissal totally unreasonable and accordingly
recommends that the Company pay the claimant a once of payment of
£500 as compensation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
21st December, 1995 Finbarr Flood
F.B./A.K. ---------------
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.