LCR23105

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Referral under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969

BACKGROUND:

The Worker referred this case to the Labour Court on 30 August 2024 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 17 January 2025.

RECOMMENDATION:

 The Employer informed the Court that they would not be attending and did not provide a submission.

The Worker commenced employment with this employer on 2 January 2024 as a Production Manager. In order to take up this job he relocated from Cork City to Co Laois. It was a start-up company with a multimillion-euro investment already injected when he started and was due to start production in January 2024.  It was agreed that he would have an annual salary of €80,000 but he was never supplied with a copy of his terms and conditions of employment. The Worker alleged that after a period of approximately three months he started to experience what he described as abusive behaviour from the owner a Mr Scot Starkey. Ther was some discussion among senior staff about this inappropriate behaviour and it was put down to pressure and the fact that the company was still not in production. The hope was that once production started that behaviour would cease.

On the day the Worker was dismissed 13 May 2024, Mr Starkey arrived at work around 12.45pm and asked if a particular order would be ready for shipment that evening. The Worker explained that it wouldn’t and why.  He stated that on 9 May 2024, he had flagged to Mr Starkey that there might be issues meeting the deadline and why.  The Worker went on his lunch break at 1.00pm.

Mr Starkey came into the canteen at about 1.10pm and in front of other staff members repeated that the shipment needed to be ready that evening.  The Worker again explained why that was not possible. Mr Starkey then started shouting at him in front of everyone so the Worker asked if they could move the conversation into the office to which Mr Starkey responded by saying “the best thing you can do is to get your car and leave”. Mr Starkey oversaw the Worker collecting his belongings from the office and leaving his work mobile behind.

The next day all access to the company mail and portal was blocked.  The Worker then received a call from the MD looking for the laptop back and had to explain that in fact the laptop was his own.  It is the Worker’s understanding that there was a six month non-compete clause in his contract.

 Discussion and Recommendation.

 It is clear from the Worker’s own submission that no procedure was followed in coming to the decision to dismiss contrary to  S.I 146 of 2000 ( Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures). The Employer declined to attend or make a submission so the only version of events before the Court is the Workers.  Taking everything into account including the fact that this was a senior position The Court recommends that the Employer pay the Worker compensation of €40,000 being the equivalent of six months’ salary.

The Court so Recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Louise O'Donnell
AR	______________________
30 January 2025	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Aidan Ralph, Court Secretary.