Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89239 Case Number: LCR12378 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: TUTHILLS LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
Recommendation:
8. The Court having considered the submissions from both parties
is of the view that the claimant was not fairly treated. The
Court accordingly recommends payment of #100 in compensation.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89239 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12378
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: TUTHILLS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH RETAIL NEWSAGENTS ASSOCIATION)
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged unfair dismissal of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. Tuthills Limited is a newsagents/tobacconists shop in
Clondalkin. The worker concerned commenced employment as a full
time sales assistants on 10th March, 1988. She worked
approximately 40-45 hours a week. She also worked every second
Sunday from 11.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. She was paid #2.25 an hour
and no overtime rates applied.
3. Initially the worker was placed on the cash register duty.
Shortly after that she was asked to take over responsibility of
the newspaper/magazine section. This involved checking them in
the morning and preparing them for the shelves, also checking
invoices etc.
4. In early December, 1988 the worker was transferred back onto
the cash register duty for the Christmas period. On 31st
December, 1988 the worker was informed that as business in the
shop was so slack after the Christmas period there was no work
available for her and she was let go. She was given her P.45,
reference, and paid in lieu of notice.
5. The worker considered she was unfairly treated and referred
her case to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation
under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The
worker agreed to be bound the Court's recommendation. The hearing
was held on 28th April, 1989.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The worker considers that she was treated unfairly because
there was at least 4 weeks work on the papers/magazine duty
as nobody had been doing the duty for a few weeks at the time
she was let go. In fact another person who used to work on
this duty was re-employed on a part-time basis to carry it out
after the worker concerned had left.
2. Two other girls who were employed subsequently to the
worker (one in October, the other in December) were retained
when she left.
3. The worker's work performance was never called into
question and she received no complaints regarding same.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The worker concerned was one of many who were let go at
that time due to the severe recession in the business. The
Company does not consider that she was treated unfairly. She
was treated no differently than the other workers who were let
go. She received all her entitlements including a reference.
The Company agreed to forego its option of having the worker
work her notice in order to facilitate her in her efforts to
look for alternative employment.
RECOMMENDATION:
8. The Court having considered the submissions from both parties
is of the view that the claimant was not fairly treated. The
Court accordingly recommends payment of #100 in compensation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
________________________
10th May, 1989. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.