FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ALLIED SECURITY NETWORK LIMITED - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case concerns a dispute regarding a claim of unfair dismissal, made by the above named Worker who was employed as a Security Guard by Allied Security Network Ltd at a construction site situated at Dublin Airport. The Claimant contends that due to a number of complaints that he made regarding working conditions and lack of comfort breaks he was dismissed on at least three separate occasions. The Company refutes these claims totally and suggests that the Claimant from the very start of his time with the Company, began taking pictures and recordings and writing notes regarding events at work which he is now using as evidence to back up his allegation of unfair dismissal.
On the 6th July, 2009 the Claimant referred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 after withdrawing his case at the Labour Relations Commission. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 20th August, 2009.
The Claimant has agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Due to a number of complaints made over the ten working days while he was employed by the Company the Claimant was dismissed on at least three different occasions.
2. The job was very important to the Claimant and at no time did he act in a manner that was likely to result in any form of disciplinary action from the Company.
3. The Claimant did not take the job with the sole intention of being dismissed and then being in a position to seek financial compensation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Claimant was never dismissed as is clear when one considers the contents of the letters dated 22nd January 2008 and 29th January 2008 which gave him until the 5th February, 2008 to respond, otherwise the Company would assume that he had resigned.
2. The Claimant at all times during his 10 days of working with the Company was afforded all comfort, rest and meal breaks as was his entitlement and this is confirmed by the perusal of his time sheets.
3. The frivolous and vexatious nature of the claim is putting the Company to considerable and unnecessary expense.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having heard the submissions of the parties, the Court does not consider that the Claimant was unfairly dismissed. The Court further considers that the Claimant's case is vexatious and totally without foundation. The Court does not therefore, recommend concession of the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
9th October, 2009______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.