FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : SEAN GARTLEN - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR1029/99/JH concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment as a truck driver in March, 1999. His employment was terminated on the 8th of October, 1999. The Employer claims that the worker failed to meet the target of daily runs and when requested to make additional runs refused to do so. The worker claimed that he had been unfairly dismissed and referred the matter to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. The Rights Commissioner's conclusion and recommendation are as follows:-
"This was an unfair dismissal. While Mr. Gartlen was obviously under some pressure and was dissatisfied with the worker's work rate, there was no use of procedures whatsoever and this can not be accepted as a manner of dealing with employee problems. There was no basis whatsoever of dismissal without notice.
As this was a clear case of unfair dismissal and as no notice was paid, I recommend that the worker receive three weeks wages by way of compensation i.e. £600 nett to be paid within three weeks of the date of issue of this recommendation."
The worker was named in the Recommendation.
The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation was appealed by the worker to the Labour Court on the 18th of April, 2000 under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal in Drogheda on the 25th of July, 2000.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There was no agreement with the Employer in relation to the number of runs to be performed on a daily basis.
2. The worker was unfairly dismissed and in the circumstances is seeking the implementation of the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was asked to do the same number of runs as the other employees. He did the required number of runs initially but subsequently he started going home early without finishing his runs.
2. On the day of his dismissal the worker was given the opportunity to do some extra runs to make up for the days he went home early but he refused. He was given a fair chance by the employer.
DECISION:
The Court can see no reason to interfere with the Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner in this case. The Recommendation is affirmed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
8th August, 2000______________________
FB/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.