Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87614 Case Number: AD8776 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: HOSPITALS TRUST (1940) LTD - and - MS. M. BUTLER |
Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. BC43/87 concerning the payment of compensation in respect of a period of lay-off.
Recommendation:
5. Having regard to the submissions of the parties the Court is
satisfied that the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation is fair
and equitable and decides that it be upheld.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87614 THE LABOUR COURT AD7687
SECTION 13(9) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
APPEAL DECISION NO. 76 OF 1987
Parties: HOSPITALS TRUST (1940) LIMITED (IN VOLUNTARY LIQUIDATION)
and
A WORKER
Subject:
1. Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. BC43/87 concerning the payment of compensation
in respect of a period of lay-off.
Background:
2. The worker concerned was employed as a supervisor in the data
co-ordinating department of the Company. The duties in the
department related to the collection, checking and preparation for
computer and microfilm of cash sheets and counterfoils received in
respect of sweepstakes, and queries. On the 1st November, 1985
the workers were laid off for a period of five weeks returning to
work on 8th December, 1985. A second lay-off commenced on 20th
January, 1986 up to December, 1986 when all workers were recalled.
Because the Company's offices had suffered flood damage the
workers carried out their duties in their own homes. The workers
did not attend the Company premises again until February/March,
1987 when they called in to receive documentation and money in
connection with the termination of their employment. The worker
concerned sought compensation in respect of the second lay-off
period. This claim did not meet with a positive response from the
Company and the worker referred the matter to a Rights
Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. Following
investigations held on 15th and 27th May, 1987 the Rights
Commissioner issued the following Recommendation dated 18th June,
1987.
"In the light of the above I recommend that the liquidator
of Hospital Trust (1940) Limited should pay the worker
concerned an ex-gratia sum of #500 and that this is
accepted by the worker in full and final settlement on her
claim for compensation on account of unfair selection
during her lay-off during 1986."
The Company appealed this Recommendation to the Labour Court under
Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court
heard the appeal on 7th September, 1987.
Company's arguments:
3. (a) Most of the duties carried out by the worker concerned
department were applicable only when a sweepstake was in
progress. The last sweepstake was held in 1985.
Consequently, apart from queries, which comprised a small
part of the overall workload, the worker's department was
largely dormant. The correspondence department dealt
with queries from the public, agents, etc. The data
co-ordinating department assisted this department by
procuring information from microfilm when required.
(b) All the workers in the correspondence department were
retained in full time employment up to May, 1986, when,
with the exception of the supervisor they were placed on
a 3 day week. As only a small proportion of queries
would require resort to the microfilm of source documents
there was no justification in maintaining workers for
this function and accordingly these duties were carried
out by the correspondence department.
(c) In the worker's submission to the Rights Commissioner she
referred to a case whereby another supervisor was paid
compensation in respect of the first period of lay-off.
It is the Company's contention that the circumstances
under which both workers were laid off were completely
different. In the case of the compensation being paid,
the Company was still trading, the worker was a
supervisor in the banking department and her duties were
carried out by the financial controller (details supplied
to the Court). In the case of the worker concerned, the
Company had ceased trading, the functions of her
department for the main part were dormant.
Worker's arguments:
4. (i) The duties for which the worker was normally employed to
do were carried out by personnel from another department
during the period of lay-off (details supplied to the
Court).
(ii) All supervisors and heads of departments were working
supervisors and were familiar with and could carry out
all duties done by the clerical staff in their own
departments.
(iii) The Company set a precedent for the payment of
compensation in respect of unfair selection for lay-off
by paying another supervisor compensation when her
duties were carried out by somebody else during a
lay-off period (details supplied to the Court).
Decision:
5. Having regard to the submissions of the parties the Court is
satisfied that the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation is fair
and equitable and decides that it be upheld.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
5th October, 1987 John M Horgan
MD/PG Chairman