Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88517 Case Number: LCR12001 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: ELITE CONTRACT CLEANERS LIMITED - and - THREE WORKERS |
Claim by three workers concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions of the parties,
accepts that the loss of employment of the workers concerned arose
directly from changes in conditions insisted upon by the
employer's client.
For this reason, and in the light of the employer's undertaking to
offer the next available suitable employment to the workers
concerned, the Court does not recommend that any compensation be
paid.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Shiel Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88517 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12001
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
PARTIES: ELITE CONTRACT CLEANERS LIMITED
and
THREE WORKERS
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by three workers concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The workers concerned were employed by the Company as office
cleaners on a two hour shift each evening after 5.30 p.m., Monday
to Thursday and two hours on Friday evening or Saturday, (at the
discretion of the workers concerned). As a result of a request
from the client company, the three workers were asked on 30th
April, 1988, to carry out their duties in the morning, between
8.30 a.m. and 10.30 a.m. The workers indicated that due to family
commitments they would be unable to work these hours. On 2nd May,
1988, the workers were put on a weeks notice. The workers
maintain that they were treated unfairly because the Company had
said that they would be placed in alternative locations if they
could not work the revised hours. On 28th June, 1988, the workers
referred the matter to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. Prior to a Court hearing on 29th July, 1988, the
workers agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Two of the workers concerned have been employed by the
Company since 1984, and the third since 1986, as office
cleaners in the one location. They have been complimented on
the standard of their work.
2. As a result of the client company's alarm system
'going-off' on a number of occasions, (it transpired that
this was caused by a bug in the system), the cleaners were
asked to confirm if they could work new hours. They were
unable to work the new roster due to family commitments. The
Company said that work at an alternative location would be
found for them. Instead of this the Company gave them notice
to quit, with no further reference to alternative work. The
workers believe that compensation is warranted for the
termination of their jobs and that they should be reinstated
as office cleaners.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. As a result of the alarm being 'set-off' on a number of
occasions, at least six times in the first three months of
1988, the Company was requested to change the cleaning times
by the client company so that the cleaners would not be
key-holders. The cleaners concerned were advised of this and
of the new hours of work. They informed the Company that
they were unable to work the new hours.
2. The Company explained to the cleaners that as a
contractor it had to comply with the demands of the client
company and that new cleaners would have to be recruited to
undertake the work. No approaches were made to recruit other
staff until after this had been explained to the staff.
3. It was intimated to the cleaners that where possible the
Company would endeavour to slot them into other locations if
and when vacancies arose. As yet new locations have not
arisen, however, the Company is hopeful that this may happen
soon.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions of the parties,
accepts that the loss of employment of the workers concerned arose
directly from changes in conditions insisted upon by the
employer's client.
For this reason, and in the light of the employer's undertaking to
offer the next available suitable employment to the workers
concerned, the Court does not recommend that any compensation be
paid.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
________________________
16th August, 1988.
B.O'N./P.W. Deputy Chairman