FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : J R MURPHY & SONS (REPRESENTED BY EUGENE F. COLLINS, SOLICITORS) - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGrath Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr Walsh |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker commenced employment as an off-licence assistant at the employer's premises, The Finglas Inn, in December, 1995. He was dismissed on the 16th of June, 1996. He claims that following a week's holidays he returned that day (a Saturday) to work a 10.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. shift but that he was asked to work an evening shift which, because of prior commitment, he could not do. He claims that, having explained his position, he was advised that if he did not work the evening shift, he "no longer had a job" with the employer. The employer claims that the worker's performance was unsatisfactory in a number of respects and that the incident which led to the dismissal was merely a culmination of events. The worker sought to have the matter investigated by a Rights Commissioner but the employer declined to attend such a hearing. The worker referred the matter to the Labour Court, on the 23rd of January, 1997, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court carried out its investigation on the 1st of April, 1997.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Due to the lack of notice given, and having made a prior commitment, it was not possible to work the Saturday evening shift. This was made clear to the employer. It was not a question of being unwilling to work that shift (details supplied to Court).
2. When the employer was asked for a letter stating why the dismissal took place, this was refused. As a result, the worker lost 6 weeks' Social Welfare benefit.
3. The worker was not employed on a probationary basis as stated by the employer. He had considerable responsibilities and was co-operative and flexible. He was also willing to change roster when required, if possible. Complaints by the employer regarding his time-keeping are being greatly exaggerated.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claimant was employed on a probationary basis only. It was clearly understood that he could be dismissed for poor performance and for misconduct. During this time, he failed to meet management standards in relation to time-keeping and responsibility and lacked a co-operative spirit with fellow staff. The incident which led to his dismissal was merely the culmination of many incidents (details supplied to the Court).
2. The worker has based his claim on an event which led to his dismissal. He pointed out that he was asked to work on his day off and he was dismissed when he refused to do so. However, he had been made aware that the manager would be absent on that Saturday night. He was aware that certain circumstances could necessitate a change in the roster at any time. For example, there had been an increase in business on Saturdays and it was always necessary that 2 senior staff should work on Saturday nights. He was warned by the employer that if he did not turn up for work, he would be dismissed.
3. The worker had a record of poor performance and discipline and had been warned several times that his behaviour could lead to his dismissal. Regarding the final incident, he was made aware at all times that if he refused to turn up for work, he would be dismissed. Accordingly, he was given a fair opportunity to keep his job.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has fully considered all of the views expressed by the parties in their oral and written submissions. The Court finds that the dismissal of the employee, given the circumstances, was out of proportion to the action of the employee.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that the employee be paid a lump sum of £500 in full and final settlement of his dispute.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
2nd of May, 1997______________________
M.K./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.