Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95235 Case Number: AD9568 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: WESTPORT CLOTHING COMPANY (THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. CW363/94 concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court is
satisfied that the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation is
reasonable in the circumstances and should be upheld.
The Court accordingly upholds the Recommendation and rejects the
appeal.
The Court so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95235 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD6895
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
WESTPORT CLOTHING COMPANY
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No.
CW363/94 concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment in the Company's
cutting room on 13th October, 1993. His employment was
terminated on 3rd June, 1994. The Company claimed that he
was unsuitable for employment in the cutting room.
Representations were made by the Union on behalf of the
worker following which the worker was re-employed by the
Company on a 10 week trial period in the warehouse. The
worker was dismissed on 11th November, 1994. The worker
claimed that he had been 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
The fact that the worker was found unsuitable for the
job with Westport Clothing should not deter him from
being very suitable for other employment. The Company
apparently responded to the initial appeal on his behalf
and gave him a second chance. I don't consider that it
would be fair to either the worker or to the Company to
suggest he be given another chance. I have no doubt
that he can prove to be a good and diligent employee in
some other place of work. I cannot find that the
Company has treated him harshly or unfairly.
Recommendation
I recommend that the worker accepts that his dismissal
was not unfair."
The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation was appealed by the
Union to the Labour Court on 16th March, 1995 under Section
13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court
hearing took place in Castlebar on 12th September, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is concerend that the worker received no
training and that given his inexperience in industry he
may not have fully appreciated his position.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. During the first period of the worker's employment he
failed to show that he could become a competent
employee. He was given a second chance following strong
representations made on his behalf. He was again found
to be unsuitable and the Company had no alternative but
to terminate his employment.
2. The Company has treated the worker fair and, therefore,
requests the Court to uphold the decision of the Rights
Commissioner.
DECISION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court is
satisfied that the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation is
reasonable in the circumstances and should be upheld.
The Court accordingly upholds the Recommendation and rejects the
appeal.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
25th September, 1995 Evelyn Owens
F.B./D.T. ____________
Chairman