FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : AIR CON SYSTEMS LTD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-036796-IR-05/TB.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Claimant was employed by the Respondent from the 7th June 2005 until the 24th August 2005 as a Service Engineer on Air Conditioning systems. The Claimant contends that his employment was unfairly terminated and that another person was employed in his place. He is seeking compensation.
The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 30th January, 2006 the Rights Commissioner issued his Recommendation, as follows:
- “Based on the evidence it is quite clear that the claimant was not dismissed but left the employment of his own free will. I do not recommend in his favour”.
- On the 3rd February, 2006, the Claimant appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 2nd August, 2006.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 The worker contends that he tried to air grievances he had with Management on a number of occasions and to hold toolbox meetings to discuss the issues, for example, to help to reduce loss through wastage and improper use of company materials and equipment, but to no avail. No meeting took place and his grievances were not addressed.
2. The worker claims that he has over 30 years' experience in his field, Refrigeration Engineer, and the only qualified Engineer working for the Company.
3. The worker believes that his employment was terminated because he was not needed any more and he was let go because of his grievance to help the Company save time and money.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 The worker left the employment of his own accord, having informed one of the administration staff of his decision and subsequently signed on for Social Welfare. The Claimant did not want to work with this Company.
2. The Company contends that it did not treat the Claimant unfairly. He was hired into a responsible technical role in keeping with his qualifications. The Company was clear and open with him on the nature of the job.
3. The Company employed the Claimant in good faith and had high regard for his skills as a Service Engineer.
DECISION:
Having heard the parties, the Court can find no reason to alter the Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner and decides to uphold it.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
9th August, 2006______________________
JBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.