FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : PADDY MCHUGH BUILDING CONTRACTOR - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY BUILDING AND ALLIED TRADES UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Re-engagement, compensation and retention of service
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company was engaged in a housing development in Co. Dublin, five bricklayers were employed on site. The dispute concerns the dismissal of the worker who was employed as a bricklayer by the Company in June 2003. The Union are requesting: a) re-engagement, b) compensation for loss of earnings, c) retention of service. The Company refused an invitation to attend the Labour Relations Commission in a letter dated 14th October, 2003. The Union then referred the claim to the Labour Court on the 21st November, 2003 in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 1st April, 2004.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 The worker was let go despite the fact that work remained and still remains on the site in question.
2. No warnings, hearings or fair procedure of any type was afforded to the worker.
3. An employee's age should not be a factor in determining suitability for employment.
4. The manner of dismissal, failure to meet the Union and failure to respond to the LRC invitation is bad industrial relations practice.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 The worker was dismissed for redundancy reasons and the selection criteria used was fair in the circumstances.
2. The Company were advised by their contractor to cease work as there were delays to starting the last five houses. The Company had no option but to reduce the number of bricklayers on site from five to two.
3. The Company selected three workers for redundancy based on their skills, service and attendance.
4. The worker was on sick leave at the time, he was advised by the Company of the situation and it was agreed he would forward any monies outstanding together with P45.
RECOMMENDATION:
Whilst it is alleged that the claimant was dismissed by reason of his age and/or his illness the case was not brought by way of a complaint of discriminatory dismissal under the Employment Equality Act. 1998, but as one of unfair dismissal under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
The Court is satisfied that a redundancy situation existed at the material time which necessitated a reduction in the number of bricklayers employed. However, the Court believes that the claimant's selection was in some respect at least influenced by his age or the fact that he was on sick leave at the material time.
The Court is satisfied that the claimant was unfairly selected for redundancy and therefore unfairly dismissed. It is also satisfied that the appropriate redress is an award of compensation. The Court recommends that the claimant be paid €7,000 in full and final settlement of his claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
5th April, 2004______________________
JBChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.