Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95148 Case Number: AD9537 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: DM PAPER LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Appeal by the worker against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. CW374/94 concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
The Court notes that the appellant did not respond to an
invitation to attend the hearing.
Having considered the submission from the Company and taking into
account the background outlined in the Rights Commissioner's
report is of the view that the recommendation should be upheld.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Pierce Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95148 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD3795
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
DM PAPER LIMITED
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the worker against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. CW374/94 concerning alleged unfair
dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company in
June, 1994 as a driver. He was employed on a part-time basis
and worked one day per week. He also did some holiday relief
work during the summer months.
In November, 1994, the Company offered the worker a full-time
position as a driver. The pay and conditions offered were
based on the "Back to Work Scheme" for which the Company had
been approved in October, 1994.
The worker refused to accept the job under the conditions of
the "Back to Work Scheme". He left the employment on 16th
November, 1994. The worker claimed that he 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
I do not consider that any dismissal took place. If the
worker was unwilling to accept a job on the terms
offered that is his right, but he has no right to
determine what is the 'normal wage'. Only the employer
can do that. The worker made a choice and must accept
the consequences.
Recommendation
I recommend that the worker accepts that he was not
dismissed and that he has no grounds for dispute with DM
Paper Ltd."
The worker was named in the recommendation.
The Rights Commissioner's recommendation was appealed by the
worker to the Labour court on 24th February, 1995 under
Section 13(9) of the industrial Relations Act, 1969. A
Labour Court hearing took place on 6th April, 1995. The
appellant did not attend at the Court hearing.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. During the course of the worker's employment with the
Company, management had no complaints regarding his
work. He was offered a permanent full-time position
which he declined.
2. The worker refused to accept the terms and conditions of
employment as offered by the Company. The Company's
offer was based on the 'Back to Work Scheme'.
3. The worker was not dismissed by the Company. He left
his position voluntarily.
4. The Company appointed a driver to a permanent full-time
position in January, 1995.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that the appellant did not respond to an
invitation to attend the hearing.
Having considered the submission from the Company and taking into
account the background outlined in the Rights Commissioner's
report is of the view that the recommendation should be upheld.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
3rd May, 1995 Evelyn Owens
F.B./D.T. ____________
Chairman