FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ABBEY FILE STORES - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company which is involved in document storage and records management, operates three warehouses in Dublin and has been in business since 1989. The dispute concerns a worker who was employed by the Company in its Camden Row branch, initially on a 3-month temporary basis, from mid-October, 1998. In early November, 1998, arising from the requirement for a service to be provided to one of the Company's customers after 5 pm, the worker was offered a new position which had a working day of 11am to 8pm, approximately. This new post became the worker's sole responsibility in January, 1999. The worker's employment was terminated on the 25th of January, on the grounds that his performance was unsatisfactory. The worker claims that he was unfairly dismissed. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court, on the 13th of April, 1999, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court carried out its investigation on the 31st of May, 1999.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
1. Allegations by the Company that the worker's attitude had changed and he had refused to carry out certain instruction are rejected. He was not given a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations. When he tried to clarify certain issues he was accused of being confrontational.
2. Under no circumstances did the worker ask the Company if it wanted him to leave his employment, as claimed by the Company. Following allegations by the Company concerning his performance, the Company's response to the worker's request for clarification was to give him 7 days' notice of termination of his employment.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The worker refused to carry out specific instructions issued by the assistant manager of the Company on several occasions (details supplied to the Court).
2. He was unwilling to operate outside his personal definition of the job and was inflexible. His attitude, general behaviour and conversation were having a detrimental effect on his colleagues at work.
3. During the course of a conversation between the worker and Company management, the worker asked if the Company "wanted him to leave". The Company's view was that this was the best course of action for all concerned and it was agreed with the worker that he would work out 1 week's notice.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered the written and oral submissions made by the parties, is not satisfied that the issues raised by the employer warranted dismissal.
The Court notes that the employee had no contract of employment, contrary to employment requirements.
The Court finds the dismissal unfair and recommends that the Company pay the claimant a lump sum equal to one week's wages in compensation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
18th June, 1999.______________________
MK/BCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.