FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : KINGSTON CONSTRUCTION LTD - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. A dispute concerning the dismissal of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case concerns a dispute concerning the dismissal of a worker from his employment. The Company is involved in the Construction Industry. The worker was employed by the Company from late June 2004 to 7th June 2005. The Union (on behalf of the worker) is claiming that the worker was let go from his employment on the basis that there was no work left in his particular area while more workers were employed after the claimant was let go.
The Company rejects the claim on the basis that although initially employed as a steel fixer, and subsequently transferred to the role of general operative, the worker was dismissed as a result of their being no work for him to carry out. The Company also claim to have fulfilled their obligations in respect of the workers dismissal.
On the 13th March, 2006 the Union referred the dispute to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed that the worker would be bound by the Court's Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 4th October 2006.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The worker was initially employed as a steel fixer but frequently carried out general operative work. The worker subsequently raised concerns in relation to terms and conditions that were considered to be inadequate. When these concerns were raised to management and the issue of non compliance with theRegistered Agreements for the Construction Industry the worker was let go despite there being alternative work available on site.
2. While the worker was employed by the Company there were no issues of inadequate performance raised at any time. It is nacceptable that other employees who were employed after the claimant was let go were retained in their employment.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was dismissed because there was no work available for him on site. He was employed as a steel fixer butwas subsequently found to be unsuitable in that role. The Company retained him in employment while there was general operative work available to him but eventuqally was left with no option but to end his employment.
2. The Company sought voluntary redundancies from all staff on the basis that work on site was nearing completion. The Company also fulfilled all obligations in relation to workers who were let go.
RECOMMENDATION:
On the information before it the Court is satisfied that the Claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy. In the absence of any agreement or custom and practice on selection criteria the Court cannot hold that the selection was unfair.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
23rd October 2006______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.