Labour Court Database
__________________________________________________________________________________
File Number: CD87830
Case Number: LCR11645
Section / Act: S20(1)
Parties: KILBARRACK FLOWERS - and - IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION
|
Subject:
Alleged unfair dismissal of one employee.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court finds that the claimant was not unfairly dismissed and that
the question of compensation does not therefore arise.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87830 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11645
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: KILBARRACK FLOWERS
and
IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged unfair dismissal of one employee.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company's business is the operation of a flower shop at
Kilbarrack Shopping Centre. The worker concerned was employed
there for one year prior to its takeover by its present owner.
She had trained for two years at the Dublin School of Floristry
and had over three years work experience prior to her employment
with this Company. On 31st January, 1987, she was dismissed by
her Employer. The worker, considering her dismissal to be unfair,
referred the matter to the Employment Appeals. The Tribunal heard
the case on 22nd May, 1987. The Determination of the Tribunal
dated 29th July, 1987 was as follows:
"The Tribunal, having carefully considered the evidence, is
satisfied that the dismissal was fair having regard to
Section 6(4)(a) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977. The
claim fails.
The Tribunal also dismisses the appeal under the Redundancy
Payments Act, 1967 to 1979."
Subsequent to the Determination being issued, the worker became a
member of the Irish Distributive and Administrative Trade Union.
On 4th November, 1987 the Union referred the matter of alleged
unfair dismissal to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court hearing took place on
16th December, 1987. Prior to the hearing the worker agreed to be
bound by the Court's recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker, having represented herself at the Employment
Appeals Tribunal, omitted to mention relevant aspects of her
case. By the time she became a member of the Union, the six
weeks during which a decision of the Tribunal can be appealed
had elapsed.
2. One of the reasons given by the Employer as justification
for the dismissal was the fact that the worker did not attend
an AnCO course. The seriousness of this complaint should be
contrasted with the fact that prior to her dismissal, the
Employer had offered the worker the business for #200 per
month. Furthermore, he had requested her to train a part
time worker. This individual is now working full time in the
flower shop.
3. The previous owner of the flower shop took the worker
with her from another establishment indicating the trust she
placed in her. When the shop passed to the current Employer
a lot of business left with the previous owner. The drop in
business cannot be attributed to the performance of the
worker.
4. There was no clear allocation of duties to the worker.
The Union refutes any contention that she is an incapable
sales person.
5. The Union considers that the worker has been unfairly
dismissed and that she should be compensated for the loss of
her employment.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was dismissed because she was incapable of
doing her job. She was good technically as a florist but was
a poor salesperson and poor at forward planning.
2. The Employer requested the worker to attend an AnCO
course in salesmanship and retail management. The worker
refused to attend the course.
3. The worker bought the plants for the 1986 Christmas
period. It transpired that she greatly overestimated the
amount required and this caused severe financial loss to her
Employer.
4. The Employer kept the worker on for over a year because
he had been asked to keep her by the former owner and because
he required someone with experience in the shop.
5. The shop was losing money while the worker was employed
there. This trend has now been reversed.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court finds that the claimant was not unfairly dismissed and that
the question of compensation does not therefore arise.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
_______________________
14th January, 1988 Deputy Chairman.
A.K./J.C.