Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91352 Case Number: LCR13378 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: DAVID COSTELLO T/A RICHARD'S - and - A WORKER |
Dispute concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions the Court is of the view
that the claimant should have been formally given notice and
accordingly the Court recommends she be paid one week's pay in
lieu.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91352 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13378
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
PARTIES: DAVID COSTELLO T/A RICHARD'S
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment in July 1990 as a
sales assistant. Her hours of work were from 9.30 a.m. to
6.30 p.m. Thursday, Friday and Saturday. In December 1990 the
shop closed and the owner in partnership with another person
opened a new store in a premises next door to the old shop. The
worker concerned was not re-employed in the new store. She
claimed that she was unfairly treated by her Employer. The
Employer claimed the worker had been employed on a casual basis.
On the 10th July, 1991 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 Court's recommendation. The
Court investigated the dispute on the 1st August, 1991.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. On the 30th November, 1990 the worker concerned was
informed by a customer that her job had been offered to
another person on a full-time basis. She was surprised at
this information and was shocked when informed by the
Employer that the shop was closing at its present location
and a new shop was opening next door. The worker was assured
that her part-time employment would be secure in the new
premises.
2. On Tuesday 4th December the new shop opened with a
full-time member of staff along with some part-time staff.
The worker concerned was not employed at the new store and
heard nothing further from her former employer. She feels
very aggrieved at the manner in which she was treated.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer had himself worked in the shop as an
employee from December 1987 until he took it over in July of
1989. He was the only person working full-time. Part-time
staff worked on a casual basis.
2. The worker concerned was aware at all times that she was
working only on a casual basis and that there was no
guarantee of employment for her. She was informed a week
before that the shop was closing at the end of November,
1990. She was informed at that stage that there was no
guarantee of work in the new premises.
3. The Employer and another person are directors of the new
store, known as "Richard's Superstore Ltd.". The other
director had no involvement with the previous store. The new
store employs a full-time experienced sales assistant. The
Employer here concerned also works full-time in the new
store. Casual staff are also employed. It was a personal
decision on the part of the two directors of the new store
not to employ the worker concerned.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions the Court is of the view
that the claimant should have been formally given notice and
accordingly the Court recommends she be paid one week's pay in
lieu.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
19th August, 1991 Evelyn Owens
T.O'D. / M.O'C. _______________
Deputy Chairman