FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : IRISH TYRE AND BATTERY SERVICES LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY RUTLEDGE DOYLE, SOLICITORS) - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Owens Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker commenced with the Company as a sales representative in May, 1996. As he lived close to the Company he normally went home for lunch. The worker claims that the following occurred:
He got married in January, 1997, and received his marriage tax free allowance on 28th March, 1997. On 11th April, the tax free allowance was withdrawn. When he questioned management he was told that getting the allowance was a mistake and that it should have been for the Company's benefit, not his. Following this, he was asked to work his lunch breaks. On 14th April, he was asked to do a job for a sister company, TAB, which would have involved working overtime. The worker refused as he had already been doing overtime and did not want more.
On 15th April, the worker was told that he was to be given two days' suspension without pay for refusing to do the overtime. When he reported for work after the two days he was told that he was to be dismissed.
The worker alleges that he was unfairly dismissed and referred his case to the Labour Court on the 28th May, 1997, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 9th July, 1997. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. The Company did not attend the hearing.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The real reason for the worker's dismissal was because he complained to management about his marriage tax free allowance being taken away from him. The dispute about refusing to the overtime was not the reason, as the Comapny maintained in a letter to the worker. Prior to the incident of the tax free allowance the worker had no problem with the Company which, in fact, indicated that it was happy with his performance.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court was informed prior to the hearing that the Company would not be attending or be represented.
In the absence of any evidence from the Company, and on the basis of the submission made by the worker, the Court finds he was unfairly dismissed. In the Court's view, the worker should be re-instated. However, in the unlikely event of that taking place, the Court recommends payment of compensation in the sum of £2,000.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
15th July, 1997______________________
C.O'N./D.T.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.