Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95114 Case Number: AD9550 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: ROUTE 66 LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. BC342/94 concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
The Court notes that the employee in this case was not issued with
the required written conditions of employment. There also was a
difference between the parties as to the trial period.
In all the circumstances the Court considers that the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation should be upheld.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95114 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD5095
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
ROUTE 66 LIMITED
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. BC342/94 concerning alleged unfair
dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the restaurant trade. It opened
for business in September, 1994. The worker concerned in the
dispute commenced employment with the Company for a trial
period on 22nd September, 1994, as a waitress. She was
transferred to the kitchen after 3 days. The worker's
employment was terminated on 27th September, 1994. The
parties differ as to the length of the trial period. The
worker was not issued with written conditions of her
employment.
The worker claimed that she was unfairly dismissed and
referred the matter to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. The Rights Commissioner's
findings and recommendation are as follows:-
"Findings
Having investigated the matter and having given full and
careful consideration to the points made by both parties
I have come to the following conclusions:-
1. I am satisfied that the worker had good reason to
assume that her employment with Route 66 would be
on a trial basis of 1 month and thereafter if
unsuitable she would be discharged during the
succeeding month unless the matters that might be
found to be unsatisfactory were put right.
2. These terms and conditions were outlined to the
worker by Mr. John Herman in the course of the
second interview.
3. The manner in which the worker's employment was
terminated left a lot to be desired in the way of
candour and consideration.
Recommendation
In the light of the above my recommendation is that
Route 66 shall pay to the worker the sum of #250 and
that this be accepted by her in full and final
settlement of all claims on the Employer in relation to
her employment and its termination".
The worker was named in the recommendation.
The Rights Commissioner's recommendation was appealed by the
Company to the Labour Court on 9th February, 1995 under
section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A
Labour Court hearing took place in Carlow on 9th May, 1995.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It was the worker's understanding following a
conversation with a member of management that she would
be trained as a chef.
2. The Rights Commissioner in his recommendation expressed
concern at the manner in which the worker was dismissed.
3. The worker was unfairly treated by management. She was
employed on a trial basis for 1 month and given little
opportunity to consolidate her position. The timing of
her dismissal caused her embarrassment and
disappointment.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was employed on a trial basis. She was
interviewed for the position. At the interview she was
informed that if she was found to be unsuitable her
employment would be terminated.
2. The Company interviewed 60 people for various positions.
Twenty workers were employed on a trial basis and two
were found to be unsuitable. Eighteen of the workers
originally employed remain in the Company's employment.
3. There is no justification in the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation. The worker's attitude towards her work
was unsuitable. It left management with no option but
to dismiss her.
DECISION:
The Court notes that the employee in this case was not issued with
the required written conditions of employment. There also was a
difference between the parties as to the trial period.
In all the circumstances the Court considers that the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation should be upheld.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
31st May, 1995 Evelyn Owens
F.B./D.T. ____________
Chairman