Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87176 Case Number: LCR11133 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: A I SCHOOL OF MOTORING - and - IWWU |
Claim on behalf of a worker for payment of alleged outstanding monies due.
Recommendation:
4. The Court, having considered the submission made on behalf of
the claimant, recommends that the Company should pay her a lump
sum of #400 in final settlement of her claim.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87176 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11133
SECTION 20(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11133
Parties: A-ONE SCHOOL OF MOTORING
and
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
(IRISH WOMENS WORKERS' BRANCH)
Subject:
1. Claim on behalf of a worker for payment of alleged outstanding
monies due.
Background:
2. The Union contends that the worker was employed by the Company
as a receptionist i.e. she took phone bookings for the Company in
her home on her private telephone, recorded same, and transmitted
the information to her employer. For carrying out these duties,
she was remunerated by the Company in the following way:
(a) her telephone account was paid,
(b) she received cash payments,
(c) she received driving lessons at the appropriate rates.
The worker was employed by the Company in 1982 and her employment
was terminated in May, 1986, at which time, she claims, she was
owed #446 by the Company. Accordingly, the Union, on her behalf,
served a claim on the Company for the payment of this amount. The
Company rejected the claim, contending that the total amount
outstanding to the worker is #122 which it offered to pay, without
prejudice. The offer was rejected by the worker and as the
Company declined to attend a Rights Commissioner's hearing or a
Labour Court conciliation conference the Union referred the claim,
under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. The Court
investigated the dispute on 30th January, 1987. The Company
did not attend the Court investigation, having advised the Court
to this effect through its Solicitors, by letter of 20th March,
1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) The worker kept meticulous records while she was in the
employment of the Company and is satisfied that the
amount of monies claimed are definitely due to her,
which she calculates as follows:
1985 - #335
phone bill - #75
new pupils - #36
_____
Total -#446
(ii) Although the worker's employment was terminated on 30th
April, 1986, the Company is still using stationery with
her telephone number on it (details supplied to the
Court) and the logo of the Company also advertises this
number. In addition, the Golden Pages, when
advertising the Company, refers to the worker's number
even though she was assured by the Company that it
would not appear in the current issue. The Company's
advertisments indicate that the number can be used at
any time and although clients, when they ring, are
advised that it is a private number the worker still
forwards details of the calls made to the Company.
(iii) The worker is not claiming wrongful dismissal, neither
is she claiming payment for work carried out after 31st
April, 1986 all she is seeking is the money due to her.
(iv) The worker's claim is reasonable and should be
conceded.
RECOMMENDATION:
4. The Court, having considered the submission made on behalf of
the claimant, recommends that the Company should pay her a lump
sum of #400 in final settlement of her claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
__________________________
P.P. Nicholas Fitzgerald
Deputy Chairman
23rd April, 1987
T.McC./J.C.