Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9558 Case Number: LCR14697 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: LEISUREPLEX COOLOCK LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
Recommendation:
The employer did not attend the Court. In the absence of the
employer, the only evidence before the Court was that of the
claimant.
The Court could find no explanation for the claimant's dismissal,
particularly as 2 weeks earlier he had been made full-time and
commended by letter for his "excellent performance at work".
The Court was appalled at the Company's treatment of the claimant
but was conscious that this was mirrored in the Company's attitude
to the Court.
In view of the totally unreasonable treatment of the claimant by
the employer, the Court recommends payment of #750 by the Company
in full and final settlement of the claim.
Division: Mr Flood Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9558 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14697
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
LEISUREPLEX COOLOCK LIMITED
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is engaged in the entertainments industry,
providing various games facilities. The worker commenced his
employment with the Company, as a crew-member, on the 7th of
November, 1993. On the 8th of August, 1994, he was promoted
to a full-time permanent position which included
responsibility for the handling of stock and cash
transactions. He was dismissed on the 18th of August, 1994.
The reason given for his dismissal was his "unsuitability".
The worker was dissatisfied with the reason given for his
dismissal. The Union sought to have the matter investigated
by a Rights Commissioner but the Company was not prepared to
attend Rights Commissioner's investigation. The dispute was
referred to the Labour Court, on the 23rd of January, 1995,
in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. The Court investigated the dispute on the 21st of
February, 1995. The Company indicated to the Court, by
letter, that it did not wish to attend nor to be represented
at the Court hearing.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Numerous attempts were made by the worker, his father
and the Union to establish the reason for the dismissal.
The Company's response was that he "was not suitable" or
that "things just didn't work out".
2. During the course of his employment the worker was never
issued with any warnings concerning the performance of
his duties. When he was made full-time, he was
commended, in writing, on the excellence of his work.
3. The worker believes that his dismissal may relate to the
fact that he was blamed, wrongly, for the disappearance
of a key. He believes that the Company is using this
event as justification for their action.
RECOMMENDATION:
The employer did not attend the Court. In the absence of the
employer, the only evidence before the Court was that of the
claimant.
The Court could find no explanation for the claimant's dismissal,
particularly as 2 weeks earlier he had been made full-time and
commended by letter for his "excellent performance at work".
The Court was appalled at the Company's treatment of the claimant
but was conscious that this was mirrored in the Company's attitude
to the Court.
In view of the totally unreasonable treatment of the claimant by
the employer, the Court recommends payment of #750 by the Company
in full and final settlement of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
2nd March, 1995 Finbarr Flood
M.K./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.