FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : SKYCREST LTD T/A THE GEORGE HOTEL - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Haugh Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Claim for unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns the Claimant's claim that he was unfairly dismissed from his employment with the Employer. Is it the Claimant's claim that during the course of his employment he was not advised of the performance issues which ultimately led to his dismissal. The Claimant is seeking compensation as a result of his alleged unfair dismissal. The Employer rejects the Claimant's claim, arguing that the Claimant's performance was addressed with him on a number of occasions and as there was no improvement in his performance the Employer had no alternative other than to terminate the Claimant's employment.
On the 7th November, 2018 the Claimant referred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 17th April, 2019.
The Claimant agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Worker was employed as Head Chef in Hamptons Restaurant at the George Hotel, Limerick from 8 January 2018 until his dismissal on 22 August 2018. His salary was €38,000.00 per annum. At all material times his employer was Skycrest Limited (‘the Company’).
Hamptons Restaurant did not open for business until June 2018. However, the Company opened a food hall in the George Hotel in early April 2018. Between January and June 2018 the Worker was involved in preparations for the opening of both the food hall and Hamptons Restaurant. He commenced cooking duties in or about April 2018. It appears that Company Management had some concerns about the Worker’s culinary and kitchen management skills. The Worker accepts that many of these concerns were well-founded.
The Company enlisted the services of a Consultant Executive Chef on 22 June 2018, Mr SS. It is common case that Mr SS had a number of ‘job chats’ with the Worker between 28 June 2018 and the date on which the Worker’s employment was terminated.
The Company’s position is that the Worker’s employment was terminated as his performance did not improve in the areas highlighted to him by Mr SS. The Worker was paid in lieu of notice and in lieu of accrued annual leave. The Worker submits that he never received any formal warnings nor was he advised that his job was at risk. The Worker commenced a new job on 24 October 2018 on a salary of €35,000.00. This job lasted until his new employer’s business closed down in February 2019.
Recommendation
It is common case between the Parties that the Worker’s performance was inadequate in a number of respects. However, the Company has failed to demonstrate that it addressed the Worker’s performance issues in a sufficiently formal manner that afforded the full benefit of fair procedures to the Worker. The Court, therefore, recommends a compensation payment of €5,000.00 to the Worker in full and final settlement is just and equitable in all the circumstances.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Alan Haugh
29th May 2019______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.