FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : PATRICK TINNEY & SONS - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY V P MC MULLIN & SON) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Alleged constructive dismissal
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker commenced employment on the 9th of November, 1998, as part of a back-to-work scheme. The Company is involved in fuel distribution. The worker claims that when he was employed he was told that he would be working as a coalman, and on any other work relating to fuel distribution. He claims that on a number of occasions he was asked by his employers to work on a farm which was owned by them. The worker refused, apart from one occasion, because he was given no protective clothing for the work involved.
The worker claims that relations between himself and his employer were always somewhat strained. On the 17th of May, 1999, the worker was asked to work on a fuel storage tank which was approximately 25 feet high. He was asked to sand it down, using an electric sander and wire brushes. The worker was not furnished with a ladder or protective harness. When he mentioned this to his employer, the employer was verbally abusive to him. The worker felt that he had no option but to leave his job, and believes that this was a case of constructive dismissal.
The worker referred his case to the Labour Court on the 9th of July, 1999, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 21st of March, 2000, in Letterkenny, the earliest date suitable to the parties. The Company did not attend the Court hearing. In a letter to the Court, the Company stated that the worker's employment was terminated after he had refused to do alternative work that was asked of him, when seasonal work became scarce.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was employed to work as a coalman and on any other associated fuel distribution work. He was not employed to work on a farm or to clean storage tanks. He was not prepared to work in unsafe conditions.
2. The employer's behaviour was so unreasonable that the worker had no choice but to leave his job. The worker behaved reasonably at all times and tried to resolve the various problems, but without success.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court regrets that Employer did not see fit to attend the hearing or otherwise communicate with the Court in relation to the details of the Worker's Complaint.
On the uncontradicted evidence of the worker, the Court is satisfied that he was required to work in unsafe conditions, and that the employer's general attitude towards him was unacceptable.
Against that background, the Court accepts that the worker's employment terminated in circumstances which amount to a constructive dismissal.
Taking account of all of the circumstances of the case, the Court recommends that the worker be paid compensation of £750 in respect of the loss of his employment.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
6th April, 2000______________________
CON/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.