Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95674 Case Number: LCR15089 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: KILCOOLE GARAGES LIMITED (Represented by T/A HILLS OF BRAY THE SOCIETY OF THE IRISH MOTOR INDUSTRY) - and - A WORKER |
Dispute concerning the alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has fully considered all of the views expressed by
the parties in their oral and written submissions.
The Court, whilst it does not consider that the Company was
unreasonable in the action it took, does find that the manner in
which it dealt with the employee here concerned left a lot to be
desired.
The Court is satisfied that the honesty and integrity of the
complainant are not in question and the Company itself made that
quite clear at the hearing.
It is the view of the Court that the Company should emphasise to
their employees that no such questions arise regarding the
claimant.
The Court recommends in view of the above that the claimant be
given a clear and unambiguous reference regarding her integrity and
notes that the Company are prepared to provide such a reference.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95674 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15089
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: KILCOOLE GARAGES LIMITED
T/A HILLS OF BRAY
(REPRESENTED BY THE SOCIETY OF THE IRISH MOTOR INDUSTRY)
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company operates a petrol forecourt and shop. The worker
concerned commenced employment as a console operator on the 20th
February, 1995. She worked a 37 hour week three-week shift cycle,
and was paid a rate of £3.75 per hour. The worker was dismissed on
the 13th October, 1995. She claimed that her dismissal was unfair.
Management rejected the claim. On the 14th November, 1995 the
worker referred the dispute to the Labour Court under Section 20(1)
of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 and agreed to be bound by the
Court's recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on the
1st February, 1996.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Shortly after the commencement of her employment the
worker concerned experienced very difficult working
conditions specifically in relation to another worker.
This employee made allegations against the claimant who
totally refuted them and informed Management. The worker
also sought a more equitable roster. No action was taken
by the Company either in relation to her complaints or on
the roster.
2. The worker found the situation intolerable and stated
that if no action was taken to resolve legitimate
grievances and to improve her working conditions she
would have no option but to seek alternative employment.
She was dismissed some weeks later.
3. The worker had a good employment record, she received no
written or verbal warnings. However her legitimate
complaints were not investigated by the Company which
eventually dismissed her in an unfair and arbitrary
fashion.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In the first few months of her employment management
spoke to the worker on a number of occasions about
aspects of her work which were unsatisfactory (details
supplied to the Court). The Company did not accuse the
worker of benefiting in any way or cast any reflection on
her honesty or integrity.
2. The Company accepted that the worker had a difficulty in
her relationship with a fellow employee which resulted
from a clash of personalities. Management did its best
to resolve this issue. Management also rostered all its
employees in a fair and equitable manner.
3. After some months in the employment the worker indicated
that she was unhappy with shift arrangements. She stated
that she was seeking a job elsewhere and would be leaving
in due course. Her standard of work disimproved. In
reviewing its staff arrangements the Company believed the
worker was not intent on staying in the job and informed
her that they were terminating her employment. She
received her statutory entitlements.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has fully considered all of the views expressed by
the parties in their oral and written submissions.
The Court, whilst it does not consider that the Company was
unreasonable in the action it took, does find that the manner in
which it dealt with the employee here concerned left a lot to be
desired.
The Court is satisfied that the honesty and integrity of the
complainant are not in question and the Company itself made that
quite clear at the hearing.
It is the view of the Court that the Company should emphasise to
their employees that no such questions arise regarding the
claimant.
The Court recommends in view of the above that the claimant be
given a clear and unambiguous reference regarding her integrity and
notes that the Company are prepared to provide such a reference.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
5th March, 1996 -------------
T.O'D/U.S. Deputy Chairman
NOTE:
ENQUIRIES CONCERNING THIS RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO
MR TOM O'DEA, COURT SECRETARY.