AD8912

Subject:
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. BC303/88 concerning payment of outstanding wages to one worker.

Recommendation:
4. Having heard the submission made on behalf of the worker
concerned and in the absence of any rebuttal by the employer the
Court is of the opinion that the Right's Commissioners
Recommendation should stand. The Court so decides.

Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu

Text of Document__________________________________________________________________

CD8921 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD1289

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67


PARTIES: METRO BURGER
and
A WORKER


SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No.
BC303/88 concerning payment of outstanding wages to one worker.

BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company on
21st August, 1988 on a casual basis. He worked from 5pm until
approximately 1am and received #11 for that period. He was again
employed on the following Saturday and Sunday starting at 5pm both
days and working until approximately 2am and 1am respectively.
However, he received no payment for those days. He subsequently
commenced employment elsewhere. The matter of the two days' pay
was referred to a Rights Commissioner who held an investigation
and recommended as follows:-

"Having investigated the matter very carefully I am satisfied
that the worker is due money from his ex-employer Metro
Burger and I therefore recommend as follows:-

Metroburger to pay the worker the sum of #26 and that this
is accepted by the worker in full and final settlement of
all claim on the company."

Note: The worker was named in this Recommendation.

The worker appealed this recommendation to the Labour Court. The
Court heard the appeal on 27th January, 1989. The Employer was
notified of the hearing but was not represented.

WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was told the money would be left for him but
in fact it was not. The only subsequent contact possible with
his ex-employer elicited the response that the worker was not
owed anything as he should have given his employer a weeks
notice of his intention to leave. The worker was, however,
only employed on a casual basis.

2. The worker was not informed of the of pay he would
receive. He was promised #12 for the first night's work but
only received #11.

3. The hours which the worker was required to work resulted
in his not being home until three or four in the morning.

3. 4. The amount recommended by the Rights Commissioner was
not adequate to compensate the worker for the wages lost and
the expenses incurred as a result.

5. This employer is exploiting young people as is evident
from his treatment of this worker.


DECISION:

4. Having heard the submission made on behalf of the worker
concerned and in the absence of any rebuttal by the employer the
Court is of the opinion that the Right's Commissioners
Recommendation should stand. The Court so decides.
~

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court

John O'Connell
20th February, 1989 ---------------
R.B./U.S. Deputy Chairman