Labour Court Database
__________________________________________________________________________________
File Number: CD89264
Case Number: LCR12421
Section / Act: S20(1)
Parties: HUGH MCNULTY AND COMPANY LIMITED - and - A WORKER
|
Subject:
Claim by the worker that he was unfairly dismissed from his employment.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is of the opinion that the worker concerned was not
fairly dismissed and recommends that he be paid the sum of two
weeks' wages as compensation.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89264 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12421
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: HUGH MCNULTY AND COMPANY LIMITED
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the worker that he was unfairly dismissed from his
employment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the fruit business. The worker
commenced his employment with the Company in May, 1988. His
duties were to load trucks and effect deliveries. On 24th March,
1989 his employment was terminated. The reason given by the
Company was a drop in business. The worker considered his
dismissal to be unfair and on the 13th April, 1989 he referred the
matter to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. A Court hearing took place on 11th May,
1989. Prior to the hearing the worker agreed to be bound by the
Court's recommendation.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker encountered difficulties in his employment
with the Company from December 1988 onwards. The worker felt
allegations that he was taking too long to perform his duties
and too long at tea breaks to be unfair since (a) he had asked
for a helper (which the other drivers had) and (b) he
frequently worked late and was not paid for it.
2. The worker does not accept the reason given by the Company
for the termination of his employment i.e. loss of business.
Casual workers employed by the Company after him were kept on
in the Company's employment.
3. The worker does not know why his employment was
terminated. The situation has had an adverse effect on him
and his family.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker's employment was terminated due to loss of
business.
2. The Company also had encountered difficulties with the
worker in relation to delays etc.
3. The Company offered the worker casual employment which he
did not accept.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court is of the opinion that the worker concerned was not
fairly dismissed and recommends that he be paid the sum of two
weeks' wages as compensation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_____________________
26th May, 1989. Deputy Chairman
A.K./J.C.