Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89174 Case Number: LCR12364 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ST. MARY'S NATIONAL SCHOOL - and - A WORKER |
Dispute concerning the employment of a cleaner.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court is satisfied that the claimant was employed on a temporary
basis and had no established claim for continued employment after
the Summer holidays. Accordingly the Court does not recommend
concession of the claim.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89174 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12364
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: ST. MARY'S NATIONAL SCHOOL
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the employment of a cleaner.
BACKGROUND:
2. In the school year 1987/88 the school employed three part-time
cleaners, who each worked two hours a day five days a week, ten
hours in total. One of the cleaners went on maternity leave on
23rd December, 1987. The worker concerned here was interviewed at
the suggestion of the worker on maternity leave and commenced
employment on 7th January, 1988. She continued working in the
school until its Summer closing date, 24th June, 1988. During the
summer holidays the worker on maternity leave advised the Board of
Management that she would not be coming back to work in the school
in September, 1988. On 1st September, 1988 the worker concerned
here returned to work at the school. The Principle of the school
told her that she could not start work until he was advised by the
Board of Management. Subsequently a member of the Board of
Management contacted the worker and told her that she had been
employed for a six month period only ending in June, 1988 and that
she had been informed of this at the interview. The worker's
position is that she was employed until the worker on maternity
leave returned and as that worker had not returned she was still
employed. The present situation is that the work has been
re-organised and the two cleaners are now working an extra hour
per day, i.e. three hours. This worker however wishes to be
re-instated and on 7th September, 1988 the matter was referred to
the Conciliation Service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference was held on 28th November, 1988 at which no progress
was made. The parties subsequently agreed on 9th March, 1989 to
refer the matter to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on 12th April,
1989.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Up until September, 1988 the school always employed three
cleaners. In January, 1988 this worker was offered a
cleaner's job until the worker on maternity leave returned.
She continued in the school until the summer holidays and as
she was not told anything differently returned to the school
in September, 1988 when it reopened having made the necessary
arrangements to have her own children minded. She told a
member of the Board of Management that as the worker on
maternity leave had not returned, she assumed she was still
employed. The worker was told that the Board of Management
had decided to employ someone from its panel of eligible
cleaners.
2. No adequate reason was given to the worker for her
dismissal and she should have been told that her job was
finished. Apparently the worker was good enough to cover for
the worker on maternity leave but that there was a need for a
more permanent replacement when that worker decided not to
return. The school acted without any regard to the rights of
the worker involved. While part-time workers have few rights,
they in common with all workers have a right to a form of
natural justice. The worker should be retained as a cleaner.
SCHOOL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was employed on an expressed contract of six
months, she was aware of the terms of her employment and that
her position as cleaner would terminate at the beginning of
the Summer recess. The Board of Management has the right to
make a decision as to whom they wish to employ and has not
breached any legislation.
2. In Labour Court Recommendation No. 10329 which concerned a
claim by three part-time National School cleaners for
re-employment by the school, the Court in its recommendation
noted that the claimants had no prescriptive right to
re-employment. In that case, the cleaners were employed by
the school on a seasonal basis over a period of six or seven
years. In this case, the worker was told that her employment
was for a six month period only and there was no commitment to
her re-employment. Therefore there is no basis for either
re-instatement or the payment of compensation.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court is satisfied that the claimant was employed on a temporary
basis and had no established claim for continued employment after
the Summer holidays. Accordingly the Court does not recommend
concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
--------------------
28th April, 1989. Deputy Chairman
U.M./J.C.