Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91158 Case Number: LCR13263 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: POWERS HOTEL, KILDARE STREET, DUBLIN - and - A WORKER |
Claim by a worker that he was unfairly dismissed.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the oral and written submissions
of the parties finds the complainant was attracted out of a
permanent employment position and given to understand that he was
entering stable employment with the Hotel.
In all the circumstances the Court recommends the complainant be
paid a lump sum equivalent to two weeks' pay.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91158 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13263
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT,1969
PARTIES: POWERS HOTEL, KILDARE STREET, DUBLIN
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by a worker that he was unfairly dismissed.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker commenced employment with the Hotel on 10th
December, 1990. He was employed as a waiter in the restaurant.
His starting salary was #140 per week. Hotel Management claim
that, following a review of operations in 1991, it was decided,
for financial reasons, to close the restaurant which served
evening meals. There was not sufficient work to retain the worker
and his employment was terminated on 6th January, 1991. The
worker claims that he was unfairly dismissed. The worker referred
the dispute to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the
recommendation of the Court. A Labour Court hearing took place on
4th April, 1991.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was in permanent employment for 5 years
before he commenced employment in the Hotel. It was
indicated to him during the interview that the position would
be full-time and that his salary would be reviewed after 6
months. His employment was terminated by the Company without
any prior notice.
HOTEL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Due to substantial losses incurred Hotel Management
reviewed its entire operation in early 1991. As part of this
review, sales in each department were examined. It was found
that demand in the restaurant for evening meals was very low
and the costs of serving these meals was far in excess of the
sales value. Management therefore decided to close the
restaurant for evening meals and the worker's employment was
consequently terminated.
2. The worker was offered employment subject to a 3 month
probationary period. This offer was made in good faith and
there was no question of closing the restaurant at that time.
The Hotel was subsequently forced to close the restaurant for
financial reasons and other workers had to be let go,
including the then manager. All monies due to the worker
have been paid and all statutes have been complied with.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the oral and written submissions
of the parties finds the complainant was attracted out of a
permanent employment position and given to understand that he was
entering stable employment with the Hotel.
In all the circumstances the Court recommends the complainant be
paid a lump sum equivalent to two weeks' pay.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
25th April, 1991 Tom McGrath
A.S. / M.O'C. _______________
Deputy Chairman