FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : THE OLDE RAILWAY HOTEL - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Alleged Unfair Dismissal
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the worker and his former employer in relation to alleged unfair dismissal. The worker was employed as a part-time breakfast chef at the Olde Railway Hotel, Westport Co Mayo. The worker claims to have been unfairly dismissed on the basis that he indicated to his employer that he was constantly working hours well in excess of what had been originally agreed and that this did not suit his personal circumstances and could not continue.
He also claimed to have been refused time off to attend personal appointments which were mentioned to the employer prior to accepting the position. The employer is alleged to have told the worker that he had got someone else to do his job and that he was dismissed.
The Employer's position is that there were continuing difficulties between the worker and another member of the kitchen staff which resulted in a difficult working environment for all concerned. The employer claimed that it was necessary to recruit a new chef to cover the required shifts and that the worker was dismissed on the basis thatthe job requirements did not suit him and he was unwilling to compromise.
On the 11th October, 2006, the worker referred the issue to the Labour Court 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 10th July, 2007.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 Initially, the worker was employed as a breakfast chef doing four or five early shifts per week, with the possibility of being required to do one or two evening shifts also. In reality, there were many instances that required the worker to work both early and late shifts on the same day. This was not what was agreed when the position was accepted.
2 The worker informed his employer that the agreed hours of work were not being adhered to and that he was being treated badly by another member of the kitchen staff. The employer then said he would get someone else to do the work and subsequently dismissed the worker.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The worker refused to sign his terms and conditions of employment. He was well aware of the requirements of the job and the need to be flexible with regard to working extra shifts.
2 The worker was not unfairly dismissed. He was dismissed because the needs of the business were such that he was no longer suitable for the position.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having heard the submissions of the parties the Court's view is that the worker was unfairly dismissed.
Given his short service and the circumstances as outlined to the Court, the Court recommends that the employer pay the sum of €750 compensation to the claimant in full and final settlement of the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
31st July 2007______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.