Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94538 Case Number: LCR14658 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: CONRAD HOTEL - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
The Court notes that during the hearing the Union accepted that
they had now received an explanation as to the dismissal of the
claimant and also that the Company are prepared to give a
reference if requested.
In the light of the above and also taking into account the terms
of the Company/Union agreement the Court does not recommend
payment of any compensation.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94538 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14658
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
CONRAD HOTEL
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was employed by the Conrad Hotel as a
second year Commis Waiter from 25th April, 1994 to 11th May,
1994. When the hotel opened for business in 1989 an
agreement was signed with S.I.P.T.U. which regulated the
relationship between the employer and all new staff. This
agreement required all staff to become members of S.I.P.T.U.
It also covered the mechanism for dealing with disputes and
outlined the terms and conditions of employment. Under the
agreement a three month probationary period is mandatory for
all new staff. It is part of each individual's contract of
employment in addition to the other agreements which covers
all recruitment at the hotel.
On the 13th June, 1994 and 29th July, 1994 the Union wrote to
the Rights Commissioners Service of the Labour Relations
Commission seeking assistance in the dispute but on both
occasions the Company objected to a Rights Commissioner's
hearing. The Union referred the dispute under Section 20(1)
of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 to the Labour Court.
The worker agreed to be bound by the decision of the Court.
The Court investigated the dispute on the 15th December,
1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was employed at the hotel from 25th April,
1994 to 11th May, 1994. This was a relatively short
period of time for any worker to be assessed for
suitability for employment. During his probationary
period the worker was never spoken to by management
regarding his suitability or his performance as a Commis
Waiter. The Personnel Co-Ordinator and the Food and
Beverage Manager both state that the worker had not
misbehaved while in the employment of the hotel.
2. The worker has references from previous employers all
attesting to his suitability to perform his duties as a
Commis Waiter. The termination of the worker's
employment by the hotel has seriously affected his
career prospects. The worker pursued his career with
the hotel in good faith as he wished to broaden his
knowledge and experience with a world-wide hotel group.
It is not acceptable that because he did not "fit in"
that the worker's employment should have been
terminated.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker concerned applied for a position with the
hotel as a second year Commis Waiter. He was invited
for an interview and it was explained to him what was
required in respect of the job as Commis Waiter. It was
also explained to the worker about the 3 month
probationary period and its implications. The worker
confirmed that he understood and accepted the conditions
of employment and signed documents to this effect. Very
shortly after the worker commenced employment management
received reports to the effect that the worker did not
have the necessary manner or attitude to become a
successful member of the team. The worker's employment
was terminated on 11th May, 1994.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that during the hearing the Union accepted that
they had now received an explanation as to the dismissal of the
claimant and also that the Company are prepared to give a
reference if requested.
In the light of the above and also taking into account the terms
of the Company/Union agreement the Court does not recommend
payment of any compensation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
13th January, 1995 Evelyn Owens
L.W./M.M. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.