Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89377 Case Number: LCR12468 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: WHITES LAUNDERETTE - and - A WORKER;FLAC |
Dispute regarding the alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submission from the claimant and the
written response made on behalf of the Company who did not attend
the hearing the Court recommends that the Company pay 7 days wages
due to the claimant and an ex-gratia sum of #100.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89377 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12468
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: WHITES LAUNDERETTE
(REPRESENTED BY BRIAN McLOUGHLIN & COMPANY)
AND
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY FLAC)
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute regarding the alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed in the Company as a shop assistant
from 10th July, 1988 to 15th March, 1989. She worked a 5 day week
consisting of 8 hour shifts starting at 1 pm and was paid #120 per
week. The worker alleges that the worker on the morning shift was
out sick from Monday 13th March, 1989 and that on Tuesday she
requested the employer to get in extra help, as she could not do
all the work herself. As the employer did not do so the worker
again made this request on Wednesday 15th March, 1989 following
which the employer dismissed her. The employer claims that the
worker on the morning shift was out sick from Tuesday, 14th March,
1989, that he himself did the work on the Tuesday and Wednesday
and that this worker was not dismissed but walked out herself. On
16th May, 1989 the worker referred the dispute to the Labour Court
under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The
Court investigated the dispute on 15th June, 1989. The Company
did not attend the hearing but was given the opportunity to
provide the Court with a written response, which is set out under
'Company's arguments'.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker had an eight hour shift and a five day week but
regularly worked overtime in the evenings which was not paid
for. She had constant difficulties with the owner. Often the
worker was not paid at the end of the week when payment was
due but had to wait until the next day. When paid in cash she
was often not immediately paid the full amount, and she was
sometimes paid by cheque on Saturday which she was unable to
cash until the following Monday. Although the worker pointed
these facts out to the owner, the situation did not improve.
In addition, the worker never got a payslip explaining
deductions although this was requested and she was never
allowed any holidays or pay in lieu and is now owed 10 days
holidays. On several occasions the owner was very abrupt and
abusive to the worker in front of the customers.
3. 2. When the worker reported for work on Monday 13th March,
1989 there was a big backlog of work to do as the worker on
the morning shift was out sick. This occurred again on the
Tuesday and although the worker asked the owner to get help he
did not do so. The worker could not finish all the work
although she did not leave until 10.45 pm that evening. On
Wednesday, 15th March, 1989 the worker again asked the owner
to get someone in to help, when she discovered that the other
worker would be out sick all week. The owner told the worker
that he was not going to get anyone and told her to start
working. When she said that she could not do all the work
without help, the owner dismissed her. The worker was not
paid for the last four days which she worked. These should be
paid for and the worker should also be compensated for the
unfair dismissal.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. No overtime applied in this worker's case. The owner paid
wages on a Sunday but this worker was paid on a Thursday in
order to accommodate her. She was often paid in advance and
was paid on the Wednesday she terminated her employment. The
worker never made any requests for a pay slip and initially
was shown the deductions from her gross wages which were the
same each week. The owner's books are available for
inspection and are in order. The owner was not abrupt and
abusive to the worker in front of customers but had to speak
to the worker on a number of occasions about co-operating with
other members of staff. The Department of Labour has advised
the owner that the worker is entitled to 5 days holidays and 2
days wages and he is prepared to pay these.
2. The other worker was out sick on Tuesday, 14th March,
1989, and not on the Monday. The owner was only advised of
this at 7.00 am that morning and he himself did all the
washing that day. When this worker presented herself for work
at 1.00 pm on the Wednesday all the washing and drying had
been completed. When she became aware that the other worker
was still out sick she became very agitated and walked out.
At no time was the worker dismissed.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submission from the claimant and the
written response made on behalf of the Company who did not attend
the hearing the Court recommends that the Company pay 7 days wages
due to the claimant and an ex-gratia sum of #100.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
___19th___July,___1989. ___________________
U. M. / M. F. Deputy Chairman