FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : FLYNN BROTHERS RENT-A-CAR (BALLYGAR) LIMITED (T/A BUDGET CAR RENTAL) (REPRESENTED BY FANNING AND KELLY, SOLICITORS) - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a claim by the worker who was employed by the Company as a driver, from 25th August, 1999 until 15th May, 2000, that he was unfairly dismissed. He claims that, following a break-in at the Company's compound, when 3 cars were stolen, he was "sacked because he was from Ballymun", where the cars were ultimately recovered. The claim is denied by the Company on the grounds that the worker was let go because staffing levels were too high. The worker referred the matter to the Labour Court, on the 26th June, 2000, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court carried out its investigation on the 27th September, 2000.
[The worker had, in September, 2000, brought a case before the Employment Appeals Tribunal arising from which an agreement was reached between the parties. The worker states that the agreement reached was only in respect of outstanding pay. The Company holds that the agreement signed covered all issues between the parties and, accordingly, that there is no longer a dispute to be determined before the Labour Court.]
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:-
3. 1. The worker was informed by management that all drivers from Ballymun were to be sacked, as there was clearly a connection between them and the robbery. No evidence of any connection was produced by the Company. Subsequently, however, the worker was informed that he was being let go because his performance was not good enough. This is rejected on the grounds that the worker had been offered a supervisory position on 2 occasions a short time before his dismissal. Shortly afterwards, the Company again changed its reason for the dismissal, stating that the car-park was over-staffed. In spite of this alleged over-staffing, the Company was actively advertising for new staff.
2. The worker did not receive any warning, written or oral, at any time, that his performance was in any way unsatisfactory. The Company clearly believed that the worker's address was sufficient reason to dismiss him.
3. The case referred to the Employment Appeals Tribunal, and the agreement which emanated following discussions between the parties, related only to matters relating to outstanding pay/holidays due, and not to the unfair dismissal of the worker.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:-
4. 1. The terms of the agreement reached between the parties at the Employment Appeals Tribunal clearly show that the worker agreed to accept a sum of money as a termination payment, resolving all matters between the partied, excluding holiday pay. The cheque paid to the worker has been cashed by him and, therefore, the terms of settlement have been upheld by the Company and accepted by the worker.
2. The worker was let go from his job because the staffing level at the Airport car-park was too high, in comparison with the previous year. There was no prejudice against the worker because he was from Ballymun. In fact, following his dismissal, a charge-hand, from Ballymun, was promoted to the position of garage supervisor.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Employer argued that the parties had signed an agreement settling all matters between them with the exception of holidays, on the 6th September, 2000, at the premises of the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
The claimant's representative while accepting that the wording of the agreement would appear to deal with all issues, was adamant that it was his understanding that the agreement only dealt with the area of pay and that the case before the Labour Court dealing with unfair dismissal would still proceed.
The Court having considered both arguments is satisfied that the claimant side did not agree that the payment of £285 covered the unfair dismissal claim.
The Court is surprised that the Employers believed that the claimant's dismissal case, that they knew was before the Labour Court, would be settled for payment of moneys the claimant believed he was owed. The Court, therefore, considered the claim for unfair dismissal.
The Court’s task was not helped by the non attendance at the hearing of a key member of the management team.
The claimant was given no contract of Employment and the Company accepted that it had no grievance or disciplinary procedures in place in the Company.
The Court having considered all the information available is not satisfied with the Company explanation for the dismissal. The Company failed to produce any evidence to support its argument on why the claimant was selected for dismissal, or that there had been any complaints about his work performance. Indeed the evidence given that his superior had tried to influence him to act as supervisor, would seem to contradict the Company position.
The Court having considered all the information finds the dismissal to be unfair and recommends that theCompany pay the claimant £1000 in compensation, and supply him with asuitable reference.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
20th October, 2000______________________
MK/MKChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.