Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90336 Case Number: AD9036 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: IRISH BANQUETING SERVICES LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Union on behalf of a worker against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. BC 76/90.
Recommendation:
In the light of the above I recommend that if Worker A is prepared
to repeat her offer of #200 Management should accept this and
restore her to the panel. Since Worker B made no such offer I do
not recommend any change to the Company's decision in his case."
(the workers were referred to by name in the recommendation.
Worker B is the worker concerned here).
3. On 11th June, 1990 the Union appealed the recommendation on
behalf of one of the workers (Worker B) to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation under Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on
27th August, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker has been employed by a number of catering
companies over the last number of years (details supplied to
the Court). During the course of his employment with these
companies the worker has never been reprimanded concerning any
aspect of the performance of his work and in fact has been
complimented on it. This incident was the first time during
his employment with the Company that the worker was
reprimanded concerning any aspect of his work. The worker was
not prepared to pay any of the shortfall for a number of
reasons. These included the fact that other people had access
to the bar during the Christmas period and control of stock is
inadequate, cash lifts took place during the period and the
worker was not aware of the amounts lifted. The worker made
the bar manager aware of a shortage which had occurred on 26th
December, 1989 and which was corrected. In these
circumstances, the worker does not believe that he can be held
responsible for the shortages which occurred during the
Christmas period. The worker should be reinstated and receive
compensation for loss of earnings.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. Throughout this incident, the Company has found the worker
most unco-operative in response to questions and procedures.
In contrast, the other worker involved has agreed to pay the
discrepancy and has been reinstated. The worker has suggested
that there was a lack of security after the course was
abandoned due to a power failure on 26th December, 1990, this
is not true as the area in question was secure (details
supplied to the Court). In addition, the total shortage on
the first day was in the region of #136,000, therefore, the
shortage continued through the other three days. Barpersons
are responsible for their stock at all times and should notify
management if anything is missing or there is a suspicion of
anything missing (details supplied to the Court).
2. The worker concerned was seen and has admitted to using a
calculator during the trading period to work out stock usage
himself. This is not common procedure and totally dispels his
insistence that he was not aware of the shortfall. The worker
was negligent in not reporting any suspicions to management
and for not doing an opening and closing stock to ensure that
items were not going missing during the night (although
management rejects the accusation that the latter occurred).
In addition, Company figures show that since the removal of
the worker the receipts in the bar in which he was working
have improved dramatically. The Company has no intention of
changing its position on the matter.
DECISION:
6. Having considered the submissions from the parties and in
view of the seriousness of the matter to both the Company and the
individual involved the Court recommends that on the basis that
the outstanding money is paid (without admission of liability)
that the Company then favourably consider re-employment. The
Court so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90336 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD3690
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: IRISH BANQUETING SERVICES LIMITED
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union on behalf of a worker against Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation No. BC 76/90.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned is employed as a casual bar assistant
with various catering companies which provide facilities at
outdoor functions, racemeetings, etc. His rate of pay per day is
#33.50. The worker has been employed on a casual basis with the
Company since October, 1986, when it entered into contract
catering at the various race tracks. The worker and another bar
assistant were removed from the panel of workers used by the
Company, following an allegation by the Company that there was a
shortfall of approximately #400 in the bar in which the two
workers were operating during the Christmas racemeeting held from
26th to 29th December, 1989. This action was objected to by the
Union on behalf of the workers on the basis that no impropriety
had taken place. Local level meetings took place arising out of
which the other worker offered to pay her portion of the shortage.
However, the worker concerned here was not prepared to pay any
portion of the shortage. No progress was made and the matter was
subsequently referred to the Rights Commissioner's Service for
investigation and recommendation. A Rights Commissioner
investigated the dispute on 23rd March, 1990 and issued the
following recommendation-
"FINDINGS
Having investigated the matter and having given full and careful
consideration to the points made by both parties I have come to
the following conclusions:--
(i) I am satisfied that it is customary within the unique
trade of Barpersons attending at recent race meetings for
deficiencies to be made good by the employees in charge of
the occasion in question.
(ii) I am also satisfied that the Company did not act unfairly
in taking a most serious view of this matter on the
shortfall of #406.
(iii) I note that Worker A initially had been prepared to make
good her portion of the shortfall (although she
subsequently withdrew this offer).
(iv) I also note that Worker B was not prepared at any time to
offer to reimburse management for his portion of the loss.
RECOMMENDATION
In the light of the above I recommend that if Worker A is prepared
to repeat her offer of #200 Management should accept this and
restore her to the panel. Since Worker B made no such offer I do
not recommend any change to the Company's decision in his case."
(the workers were referred to by name in the recommendation.
Worker B is the worker concerned here).
3. On 11th June, 1990 the Union appealed the recommendation on
behalf of one of the workers (Worker B) to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation under Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on
27th August, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker has been employed by a number of catering
companies over the last number of years (details supplied to
the Court). During the course of his employment with these
companies the worker has never been reprimanded concerning any
aspect of the performance of his work and in fact has been
complimented on it. This incident was the first time during
his employment with the Company that the worker was
reprimanded concerning any aspect of his work. The worker was
not prepared to pay any of the shortfall for a number of
reasons. These included the fact that other people had access
to the bar during the Christmas period and control of stock is
inadequate, cash lifts took place during the period and the
worker was not aware of the amounts lifted. The worker made
the bar manager aware of a shortage which had occurred on 26th
December, 1989 and which was corrected. In these
circumstances, the worker does not believe that he can be held
responsible for the shortages which occurred during the
Christmas period. The worker should be reinstated and receive
compensation for loss of earnings.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. Throughout this incident, the Company has found the worker
most unco-operative in response to questions and procedures.
In contrast, the other worker involved has agreed to pay the
discrepancy and has been reinstated. The worker has suggested
that there was a lack of security after the course was
abandoned due to a power failure on 26th December, 1990, this
is not true as the area in question was secure (details
supplied to the Court). In addition, the total shortage on
the first day was in the region of #136,000, therefore, the
shortage continued through the other three days. Barpersons
are responsible for their stock at all times and should notify
management if anything is missing or there is a suspicion of
anything missing (details supplied to the Court).
2. The worker concerned was seen and has admitted to using a
calculator during the trading period to work out stock usage
himself. This is not common procedure and totally dispels his
insistence that he was not aware of the shortfall. The worker
was negligent in not reporting any suspicions to management
and for not doing an opening and closing stock to ensure that
items were not going missing during the night (although
management rejects the accusation that the latter occurred).
In addition, Company figures show that since the removal of
the worker the receipts in the bar in which he was working
have improved dramatically. The Company has no intention of
changing its position on the matter.
DECISION:
6. Having considered the submissions from the parties and in
view of the seriousness of the matter to both the Company and the
individual involved the Court recommends that on the basis that
the outstanding money is paid (without admission of liability)
that the Company then favourably consider re-employment. The
Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
___________________
7th September, 1990.
U. M. / M. F. Deputy Chairman.