Up Arrow
 
 
Question Icon
 

Select an option from the dropdown list and press GO

 
Question Icon
 

Select an option from the dropdown list and then press GO

 
 
 

2002

Information Icon Water Mark
Up Arrow

Add to Binder allows you to add Workplace Relations content to your personal binder for viewing or printing later.

Binder icon image Binder

To access your binder, click the Binder link at the top of the page.

 
 

AD0243

FULL RECOMMENDATION

CD/02/64
APPEAL DECISIONNO.AD0243
(IR3797/01/JH)
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969



PARTIES :
FORCE 10 LIMITED.

- AND -

A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY PATRICK O NEILL & CO. SOLICITORS)


DIVISION :

Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Mr Carberry
Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu
SUBJECT:
1. Hearing arising from AD0173.


BACKGROUND:

2. The worker was employed on a temporary basis from September, 2000, until January, 2001. The Company provides a security service, and had a number of contracts on which the worker was employed. It claims that a number of difficulties arose because of the worker's behaviour in December, 2000. The Company claims that in January, 2001, it had to let the worker go as there were no more contracts for him. The worker felt that he was unfairly dismissed and referred his case to a Rights Commissioner who recommended that he should be paid £700 (€888.82) in full and final settlement of his claim. The Company did not attend the Rights Commissioner's hearing but appealed the Recommendation to the Labour Court. The worker did not attend the appeal hearing and the Court upheld the appeal and set aside the compensation awarded in AD0173 which issued in December, 2001. The worker later contacted the Court, explained his reasons for not attending the previous Court hearing and a second hearing was arranged for the 27th of June, 2002

WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:

2. 1. The worker had previous experience in the security business, and provided a good service which was acknowledged by the Company.

2. The worker admits that he had some problem in December, 2000, but nothing of a serious nature.

3. The worker had been offered a permanent contract and expected to be retained by the Company in January, 2001. When it became clear that he would not be offered more work, he had no choice but to leave.

COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. The Company is small and has a limited number of contracts. The worker was employed on short-term contracts and by January, 2001, it was not possible to find another position for him.

2. There had been no problems with the worker until December, 2000, when a number of incidents happened (details supplied to the Court).

3. The Company does not believe it acted wrongly in the way it treated the worker.

DECISION:

Having considered the submissions of both parties, the Court is of the view that the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is reasonable and should be upheld.

In making this decision, the Court accepts that the employer acted bona-fide in relation to the claimant and this decision should not carry any imputation of wrongdoing on the employer's behalf.




Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Kevin Duffy
8th July, 2002______________________
CON/MB.Deputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.




 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Share this page

 
logo-sml
Links|About the Reform Programme|Accessibility|Privacy Policy|Disclaimer|Sitemap

Registered Address: Department of Business, Enterprise and Innovation, O'Brien Road, Carlow