FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : THE EARL INN (REPRESENTED BY DONAL O' HAGAN AND COMPANY, SOLICITORS) - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Alleged constructive dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a worker who commenced employment as a general manager with the Company on the 16th of August, 1999. He left the employment on the 15th of December, 1999. The worker claimed that he was constructively dismissed. The Company rejected the claim stating that the claimant left the employment of his own accord. On the 7th of February, 2000, the claimant referred a complaint to the Labour Court under Section 20 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation. A Court hearing was held in Dundalk on the 2nd May, 2000.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. During the period of the employment the worker carried out his duties in a competent and efficient manner. He was frequently on call seven days a week and often did not have a day off. It was agreed between the worker and the employer at interview stage that he would be able to take time off (one week) when his baby was born in early November. He was continually called into work during this time.
2. On several occasions the employer was verbally abusive to the worker and other staff. The employer continually undermined the worker's authority.
3. On the 15th of December, the worker arrived home after a 19 hour shift to learn that his son had been taken to hospital. He sought time off but it was refused. The worker reported for duty that evening and the employer verbally abused the worker. The employer subsequently apologised for his behaviour. The worker then carried on with his duties until 7.30 pm when he was told his son would be in hospital overnight. The worker again sought time off. The employer refused and proceeded to insult the worker with abusive language. The worker reacted strongly and told the employer he would not be treated in such a manner. As the employer still refused the worker's request he left the premises at approximately 8.30 pm.
4. The worker did not wish to leave the employment. He had worked very hard to make the business a success and was on a profit related bonus, soon to come to fruition. The worker was forced to leave because of his unjust, arbitrary and unfair treatment by the employer.
5. The worker's losses were substantial. He was without full time work over the Christmas period and remained without full time work for two and half months. He lost £3,600 not including bonus. The worker seeks appropriate redress.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The employer was not verbally abusive or physically aggressive towards the worker. He did not dismiss the worker rather he walked out of the employment after refusing to accept that the employer was entitled to the worker's support in the running of the business.
2. The 15th of December incident was one of many which occurred from the commencement of the worker's employment which confused the employer and strained the working relationship (details supplied to the Court). The employer enquired about the baby's welfare, offered to have an immediate relative stay with the child. This offer was rejected. The employer explained to the worker that he needed his assistance to run the business on the 15th of December. His refurbished club had only re-opened the previous evening. The employer tried as best he could to assist the worker and was concerned about the baby's welfare. He had however, to employ young members of his own family on the 15th to help out as there was a staff shortage. The employer was unable to make any progress with the worker who felt very strongly that he was entitled to the time off. The worker was not amenable to consider any alternatives and walked out of the employment. In one of the previous incidents he had also walked out of the employment and had returned the following day , apologising for his behaviour.
3. The employer did not dismiss the worker. He left the employment of his own volition. The employer was anxious to retain him in the employment, had gone through a protracted interview process to recruit the worker and hoped to develop the worker as a senior person in the business. He was most disappointed by the worker's action.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given serious consideration to both the written and oral presentations made by both parties to this case.
It is evident to the Court that both parties were working very long hours and were under severe strain due to the pressures, before and after, the opening night of the club. The claimant was under further pressure due to the onset of family problems, which also occurred at this time. These in turn caused extra difficulties for him.
These were abnormal conditions and under these circumstances the Court is satisfied that while a genuine disagreement arose between the parties, there was no constructive dismissal.
Therefore the Court does not find in favour of the claimant.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
16th May, 2000.______________________
TOD/BCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.