Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88298 Case Number: AD8849 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: NATWORTH LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Appeal by the worker against Rights Commissioners Recommendation No. BC223/87 concerning the alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
Recommendation:
11. The Court is satisfied that the worker's employment with
Natworth Limited commenced on 15th October, 1987, and that
Natworth Limited found her work to be totally satisfactory and
notes that she will be furnished with a reference to that effect.
The Court is also satisfied that she terminated her own employment
in circumstances which the Court finds could not be construed as
constructive dismissal and accordingly finds no compensation is
warranted in this case.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88298 APPEAL DECISION NO.AD4988
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: NATWORTH LIMITED
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the worker against Rights Commissioners
Recommendation No. BC223/87 concerning the alleged unfair
dismissal of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company purchased the premises known as the Country Club
Hotel, Portmarnock, County Dublin in October, 1987. The principal
source of the Company's business is from functions.
3. The hotel was closed for two days and commenced trading under
the new ownership on 15th October, 1987. Most of the former
employees were re-employed by the new Company for a probationary
period.
4. The worker concerned retained her position in the washer-up
department where she had been employed for the past three years.
Prior to the take over she had an assistant working with her.
However this person was assigned to other cleaning duties.
5. Early in December, 1987, the worker concerned requested
additional assistance in the wash-up department. Her former
assistant was approached and asked to return to the wash-up
department. This worker refused to return. A number of other
possibilities were explored and eventually management decided to
assign two teenagers who normally worked as lounge boys to assist
the worker when her department was busy.
6. The worker concerned indicated to management that she was
unhappy with this arrangement. As management declined to make
alternative arrangements the worker left her employment.
7. The worker referred her case to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. Following an investigation held
on 19th February, 1988, the Rights Commissioner issued the
following recommendation -
"In the light of the above I find that the worker was
constructively dismissed from her employment with Natworth
Ltd. and I recommend that the Company pay to the worker the
sum of £900 in compensation for the loss of her employment
and this is accepted by the worker in full and final
settlement of all claims on Natworth Ltd."
The worker was referred to by name in the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation.
8. The worker appealed the Rights Commissioner's recommendation
to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on 30th May,
1987.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
9. 1. For as long as the worker had worked in the wash-up
department she always had an assistant. She had worked in
the hotel for over 3 years and her work was always of a high
standard.
2. There had been many changes in the Companies which ran
the hotel but the workforce always remained unaltered and
continued working throughout without any break in service.
3. The two assistants assigned to her did not carry out
their duties in a satisfactory manner. This put the worker
under a lot of pressure considering that around Christmas is
the busiest time of the year for the hotel as there are a lot
of extra functions. The worker felt that as she could not
perform her duties in a satisfactory manner, and Management
did not accede to her request for extra help she was left
with no option but to resign. She was in effect
constructively dismissed.
4. The amount awarded by the Rights Commissioner is
insufficient in view of the circumstances under which she had
to leave her employment and the fact that she did not receive
any reference.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
10. 1. The Company, Natworth Ltd., took over the hotel on 14th
October, 1987. It has no connection with the hotel's
previous owners. All former employees were made redundant by
the previous owners and received their P.45's. Most of these
workers, including the worker concerned, were re-employed by
the present owner under new contracts and on a probationary
basis. Therefore the present owner is not liable for any
previous service which the workers had with the hotel.
2. Management made every effort to facilitate the worker
concerned when she asked for assistance. This is borne out
by the fact that two assistants were assigned to her , when
previously there was only one. Management do not accept that
these workers were incompetent. In fact when the worker
concerned left, they were able to carry out their duties and
the worker's concerned as well in a very satisfactory manner
during the busiest time of the year for the hotel.
3. It appears that the worker concerned resigned her
employment based on her own assessment of the abilities of
the two people assigned to help her. It subsequently
transpired that these two people were more than able for the
task. Consequently the Company should not be found liable
for the worker's own erroneous judgement of the ability of
other employees.
DECISION:
11. The Court is satisfied that the worker's employment with
Natworth Limited commenced on 15th October, 1987, and that
Natworth Limited found her work to be totally satisfactory and
notes that she will be furnished with a reference to that effect.
The Court is also satisfied that she terminated her own employment
in circumstances which the Court finds could not be construed as
constructive dismissal and accordingly finds no compensation is
warranted in this case.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
5th August, 1988 Nicholas Fitzgerald
M.D./P.W. Deputy Chairman