Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94707 Case Number: LCR14679 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: STRONGBURY LIMITED T/A ROCHESTOWN MOTORS - and - A WORKER |
Alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions the Court has come to the
conclusion that the claimant was treated unfairly.
The Court, accordingly, recommends that he be paid a sum of #1000
as compensation.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Pierce Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94707 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14679
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: STRONGBURY LIMITED T/A ROCHESTOWN MOTORS
(REPRESENTED BY THE SOCIETY OF THE IRISH MOTOR INDUSTRY)
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The worker was employed by the Company on 14th March,
1994, on a net weekly wage of #180 per week. He was employed
as a mechanic and service manager. He claims that the Company
promised to review his wages after one month and that he would
be given the use of a new car plus a #50 fuel allowance per
month.
2. There was no review of the worker's wages until a meeting
on 22nd September, 1994 when he was offered an increase of #30
per week net. Although unhappy with the new increase the
worker accepted it as the Company also offered a productivity
related bonus.
3. On 23rd September, 1994, the worker was told by the
Company that his services were no longer required. He was
given a week's wages in lieu of notice.
4. The worker felt that he was unfairly dismissed and
referred the dispute to the Labour Court on 2nd December,
1994, under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 26th January,
1995.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker left a position with the Automobile
Association to take up employment with the Company. He had
recently attained the qualification of workshop Service
Manager. He operated the entire service department alone for
over one month and cleared a back log of work. This work
involved a considerable amount of unpaid overtime. His work
was praised on a number of occasions by management.
2. The worker's pay was not reviewed for five and a half
months. He was offered the use of various second hand
vehicles instead of a new car, as was promised. The worker
was badly treated in the manner of his dismissal. Since the
dismissal two workers were taken on by the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENT:
4. 1. The worker's salary was not reviewed after one month as
the performance of the workshop was not up to expectations. A
review of the Company's performance showed serious losses and
high over-head costs. The worker was informed of this at the
meeting on 22nd September, 1994. The worker indicated that he
should be paid a higher salary regardless of the financial
problem the Company was experiencing.
2. The Company could not afford to pay the wages of a
workshop manager and because of this it was obliged to let the
worker go. The Company's financial situation is still very
difficult and another mechanic has been let go. The worker
was supplied with an excellent reference.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions the Court has come to the
conclusion that the claimant was treated unfairly.
The Court, accordingly, recommends that he be paid a sum of #1000
as compensation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
14th February, 1995 -----------
C O'N/U.S. Chairman
NOTE:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.