Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89441 Case Number: LCR12510 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: THE KILKENNY SHOP/BLARNEY WOOLLEN MILLS - and - A WORKER |
Dispute regarding the alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is of the view that the claimant was not fairly
treated and accordingly recommends that she be paid a sum of #500
compensation.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89441 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12510
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: THE KILKENNY SHOP/BLARNEY WOOLLEN MILLS
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute regarding the alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker commenced part-time employment in the Shop as a
sales assistant on 8th February, 1988 and was appointed to the
post of secretary/receptionist on 16th May, 1988. Towards the end
of 1988 the Shop was acquired by another Company which commenced
operations there on 28th December, 1988. On 18th January, 1989
the worker was verbally informed (and by letter of 20th January,
1989) that her employment was terminated on the basis that the
position of secretary/receptionist would not form part of the
operation. This was unacceptable to the worker who claims that
she was unfairly dismissed as the Shop was acquired by the Company
on the basis that all employment would be continued. The
Company's position is that the post could no longer be justified
and the worker was not interested in changing to sales work. On
7th April, 1989 the worker referred the matter to the Rights
Commissioner's service. However, the Company declined an
invitation to attend such an investigation and on 16th May, 1989
the worker referred the matter to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation 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 21st July, 1989.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. While employed in the Shop the worker carried out her
duties satisfactorily and efficiently and was commended by
both management and customers (details supplied to the Court).
On 23rd December, 1988 the acting Chief Executive by letter
instructed all the workers that the Shop had been sold as a
going concern and that under the terms of the agreement all
employment would be continued by the new Company under
comparable terms and conditions, etc. (details supplied to the
Court).
3. 2. However, this worker's employment was terminated
subsequently which is a clear breach of the agreement. The
reasons given for the termination, i.e. that the position of
secretary/receptionist would not form part of the new
operation is not valid as such duties as were involved would
still be an important function of the new operation and no
mention was made of the telephonist duties of the worker. The
worker was not offered sales work and the dismissal was
unfair.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In view of the serious loss making position which the Shop
had experienced it was certain that the Company would have to
make necessary changes to establish a viable operation. In
reviewing the staff situation it became obvious that the
position of secretary/receptionist could not be justified in
the new operation. Most administrative procedures are
centralised at the headquarters of the Company in Cork and no
similar post exists in any of the Company's shops in Dublin or
Cork.
2. The question of the worker continuing to perform the same
functions did not arise as there was no longer a clerical
position available for her. While the Company reduced the
requirement for workers in the clerical area it had different
needs in the sales area. However, the worker had expressed no
interest in the sales work when this had been discussed with
her on a previous date. The Redundancy Payments Acts contain
provisions whereby an employer can restructure or re-organise
a business to suit future requirements. This is a de facto
redundancy situation and the allegation that she was dismissed
for any other reason is incorrect.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court is of the view that the claimant was not fairly
treated and accordingly recommends that she be paid a sum of #500
compensation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
___11th___August,___1989. ___________________
U. M. / M. F. Deputy Chairman