FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : CENTRAL HOTEL - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. Then worker concerned commenced employment at the hotel as a Chef on the 9th of May, 2003. He claims he was unfairly dismissed, without notice, on the 7th of July, 2003. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 11th of November,2003, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 11th of March, 2004.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.The worker has been employed as a chef in several other establishments prior to working for the Central Hotel and did not encounter any problems.
2. The worker worked long hours when necessary. Management gave no indication that it was dissatisfiedwith the worker's performance.
3The worker was shocked by the decision to dismiss him. His account of events is diametrically opposed to that of management.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company claim that the worker committed an act of clear gross misconduct which led to his summary dismissal.
2. The Company felt that it would be inappropriate to allow the worker to continue in employment following the alleged incident
3. The Company provided a witness to corroborate their account of the alleged incident.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is faced with two diametrically opposed versions of what occured prior to the claimant's dismissal. On the evidence available it is not possible to establish conclusively the veracity of either version. It does appear that the original cause of the events leading to the dismissal was the management's response to the claimant's use of certain expletives. The Court believes that this matter could, in the circumstances, have been handled more sensitively. The Court also believes that if it was intended to terminate the claimant's employment within the probationary period this should have been on notice.
Taking all relevant factors into account, the Court recommends that the claimant should be paid two weeks' wages in lieu of notice and that he be furnished with a reference.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
16th. March, 2004______________________
MG.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.