Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95161 Case Number: LCR14766 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: HEATHCOURT CLEANING SERVICES LIMITED (THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
The Court having fully considered all of the views expressed by
the parties, finds there is a contradiction regarding the
conversation which took place between the parties.
Notwithstanding this, the Court finds that the procedures adopted
by the Company in the matter left much to be desired and amounted
to unreasonable treatment of the claimant.
In all the circumstances the Court recommends that he be paid #75
in full and final settlement of this dispute.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95161 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14766
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
HEATHCOURT CLEANING SERVICES LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a contract cleaning company. The worker
concerned commenced employment with the Company in September,
1994. He was employed as a part-time cleaner working
approximately 2 hours per week. His employment by the
Company was terminated on the 7th February, 1995. The worker
claims that he was unfairly dismissed and referred the matter
to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation
under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A
Labour Court hearing took place on 21st April, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was given one weeks' notice. Management
indicated that his refusal to work extra-time on a
number of occasions was the cause of his dismissal.
2. During the period of his employment the worker refused
to work extra-time on one occasion. A reasonable
explanation was offered. He had to take his father to
hospital.
3. The worker received no complaints or warnings in
relation to his work/behaviour.
4. The worker was treated unfairly by management. No
investigation took place prior to his dismissal.
Another worker on the site was junior in service to the
worker concerned. In the circumstances management's
decision to dismiss him cannot be justified.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claimant was employed as a part-time cleaner by the
Company for a short period - 6 months.
2. The worker did not abide by the conditions of his
contract. He refused to work more than his normal
hours.
3. It was necessary to move a part-time employee from the
ILAC Centre. The worker concerned was chosen over a
colleague with shorter service because of his non
co-operation with management.
4. The requirements of clients change frequently and often
at short notice. The Company must be able to respond to
changes as required. The Company designs its conditions
of employment to meet the changing demands of the
business. The worker would not accept the requirement
to be flexible.
5. The Company was willing to offer the worker employment
at an alternative site. His behaviour on the telephone
on the day concerned rendered the making of this offer
impossible.
6. The worker terminated his own employment. His abusive
behaviour towards management was unacceptable.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court having fully considered all of the views expressed by
the parties, finds there is a contradiction regarding the
conversation which took place between the parties.
Notwithstanding this, the Court finds that the procedures adopted
by the Company in the matter left much to be desired and amounted
to unreasonable treatment of the claimant.
In all the circumstances the Court recommends that he be paid #75
in full and final settlement of this dispute.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
23rd May, 1995 Tom McGrath
F.B./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.