Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88416 Case Number: LCR11980 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: AZURE PROPERTIES - and - A WORKER |
Alleged unfair dismissal of one worker.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, noting that the Employer did not accept the Court's
invitation to attend a hearing, and having considered the
submission from the claimant and the letters submitted by the
Employer is of the view that no valid reason for declaring the
claimant redundant has been advanced.
Accordingly the Court recommends that the claimant be re-instated
and paid a sum of £1,000 as compensation for loss of earnings and
distress.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Heffernan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88416 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11980
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: AZURE PROPERTIES
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged unfair dismissal of one worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. Azure Properties, proprietors of The Cellar Bar, Galway,
employed the worker on 15th June, 1987. She was paid from 2nd
July, 1987. She helped to organise and set up the bar and carvery
on the premises, and with purchasing equipment for the kitchen,
carvery and bar. The worker's husband is a director of the
Company. He was manager of the premises at the time the worker
commenced employment. The worker states that she worked fifty
hours per week. She received £200 net in payment. (Details
supplied to the Court).
3. On 1st April, 1988, the worker received notice of dismissal
from the Chairman of the Company with a week's pay in lieu of
notice. The reason given for the dismissal was overstaffing. The
worker considered that her dismissal was unfair and did not accept
the reason given. She referred the matter to the Labour Court
under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A
Court hearing took place on 13th July, 1988, in Galway. Prior to
the hearing the worker agreed to be bound by the Court's
recommendation. The Company did not respond to the Court's
invitation to attend the hearing.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was prepared to sacrifice her time in order to
set up a high standard business and have a well organised
premises. She feels that the work and effort she put into
this premises helped in no small way to create its new image.
She did all types of work, cleaning, cooking and serving food
and drink.
3. 2. The worker totally rejects the contention that the
premises was overstaffed and that this was the reason for her
dismissal. The remaining staff have taken over some of her
work by working extra hours and overtime. The company has
also employed part time staff who are carrying out her work.
3. The worker considers that the main reason for her
dismissal was a dispute between her husband and the other two
directors of the company.
4. The worker finds it difficult to get another job because
of the circumstances of her dismissal.
5. The worker is seeking reinstatement or adequate
compensation for the loss of her job.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENT:
4. 1. The company did not attend the hearing. In a letter dated
4th July, 1987 to the Court, it stated that the worker had
been made redundant due to overstaffing. In a further letter
dated 20th July, in response to a letter from the Court, it
stated that it had no further reasons to present for the
dismissal of the worker.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, noting that the Employer did not accept the Court's
invitation to attend a hearing, and having considered the
submission from the claimant and the letters submitted by the
Employer is of the view that no valid reason for declaring the
claimant redundant has been advanced.
Accordingly the Court recommends that the claimant be re-instated
and paid a sum of £1,000 as compensation for loss of earnings and
distress.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
___9th___August,____1988. ___________________
A. K. / M. F. Deputy Chairman