Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88708 Case Number: LCR12093 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: SPAWELL HOSPITALITY AND LEISURE CENTRE - and - A WORKER |
Claim by a worker for alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
5. The Court finds that the change in duties required of the
claimant was brought about by changes in the business. There
were, however, short-comings on the management's part in the way
in which the changes were explained to her. The Court considers
that she deserves some compensation and recommends that she be
paid #100 (one hundred pounds).
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Heffernan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88708 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12093
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: SPAWELL HOSPITALITY AND LEISURE CENTRE
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by a worker for alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. On 14th December, 1987 the worker was employed by the Company
as a junior waitress at a rate of #90.00 per week and worked in
the New Grill Room Restaurant. In June, 1988 a new manageress was
employed in the centre. The worker was informed that she was
being moved from the restaurant to work in other food areas in the
centre. The worker contends that she was verbally abused by
management and told to leave the premises. The Company contends
that the worker was never dismissed but resigned following her
refusal to carry out new duties. The worker referred the matter
to the Rights Commissioners' Service, but the Company refused to
attend a hearing by a Rights Commissioner. On 14th September,
1988 the worker referred the issue to the Labour Court under
Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The worker
agreed to be bound by the recommendation of the Court. The Court
investigated the dispute on 10th October, 1988.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Following the worker's return from holidays she was
contacted at home on her day off and asked to come into the
centre to see the manageress. The worker was kept in the
office for an hour and was told that she would no longer be
working in the restaurant but could make up her hours if she
wished by working five nights in the bar serving baskets of
food. During the interview the manageress told the worker
that she was not sure if there would be a reduction in wages
and the worker was verbally abused. The worker was told that
she was being changed from her present duties because she was
too young to deal with drunks although the waitress who
replaced her was only slightly older. The worker had worked
in the restaurant for seven months and the new duties would
have involved working in the bar.
3. 2. The worker reported for work the following day and
remained in the restaurant until the owner called her into his
office and she was told that her old job was no longer there
and if she did not wish to serve baskets in the bar there was
no job available for her. The owner was also very rude and
told the worker to leave. The worker had previously worked in
another catering establishment and has references stating that
she is capable of such work. The worker was employed as a
waitress and would not have taken the job in the centre if she
had known she would be expected to work in the bar serving
baskets of food.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Food is available throughout the premises as the centre
has a full restaurant certificate in all areas. By May, 1988
it had become obvious that there was no market for the type of
restaurant business it had been hoped to develop and it was
decided to increase the provision of food in the lounge area
at night and the self service carvery during the day.
Management felt that this worker lacked the experience to work
in the restaurant on her own and on her return from holidays
these changes were explained to her and she was informed that
in order to complete 40 hours per week she would be required
to work in other food areas: carvery at lunchtime; baskets at
night; and in the restaurant on busy nights with more
experienced workers.
2. The centre carries out a varied catering operation and
flexibility is required and has been provided from the other
catering workers without any problems. However, this worker
refused to work the new arrangements. At no point did
management intend to dismiss this worker as she was found to
be a good junior waitress. She was never verbally abused by
management and there was no question of a reduction in her
wages or conditions of employment. Management never asked the
worker to do any duties other than those expected of any
waitress. The worker resigned her position and was at no
stage dismissed.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court finds that the change in duties required of the
claimant was brought about by changes in the business. There
were, however, short-comings on the management's part in the way
in which the changes were explained to her. The Court considers
that she deserves some compensation and recommends that she be
paid #100 (one hundred pounds).
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M. Horgan
-----------------
27th October, 1988.
U.M./U.S. Chairman