Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91495 Case Number: LCR13510 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: R.S. SALES LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Claim by the worker for three weeks wages in lieu of notice and travel expenses.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is of the opinion that the worker concerned in this case was
treated with scant courtesy by the Management of the Company who
in this case are attempting to stretch the meaning of ordinary
language beyond any reasonable limits in order to avoid a clear
commitment to the payment of one month's pay in lieu of notice.
The Court recommends that the worker be paid the three weeks
balance due to her without further delay.
The Court also notes the agreement made during the course of the
hearing to pay the worker agreed estimated mileage expenses of 50
miles per week. This should also be paid without further delay.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91495 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13510
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
PARTIES: R.S. SALES LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE DONAL O'KELLY AND COMPANY SOLICITORS)
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the worker for three weeks wages in lieu of notice
and travel expenses.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company as
an assistant accountant in November, 1990. She received a written
contract of employment which stipulated that she was on a six
months probation period. It also stated that the employment could
be terminated by either party giving one month's notice. The
worker was dismissed on the 8th April, 1991. She received one
week's pay in lieu of notice. The worker claims that she is due a
further three weeks wages and some travel expenses. Management
rejected the claim. The worker referred the issue to a Rights
Commissioner for investigation but the Company objected to such an
investigation. On the 10th September, 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
11th December, 1991.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker's contract of employment stated that part of
her duties included payroll preparation. She subsequently
discovered that this also included collecting cash from the
Bank with another member of Management each week. She used
her own car for these journeys and was very nervous handling
the large sums of cash (fear of armed robbery). She conveyed
her fears to Management. In March, 1991 the worker was in
charge of organising the entire payroll collection from a
bank. She decided to collect the wages one day early (for
security reasons) and as there were no other members of
Management present she signed a Director's name on each of
three wages cheques in order to collect the pay-roll. The
second signature was required in these transactions. She
completed the task without incident, with the stores
supervisor as an escort. Subsequently she advised the
Director in question. On Monday 9th April, she was called to
the Managing Director's Office and dismissed.
She offered to work out her months notice as per her contract.
The Employer stated that this was not necessary and said he
would forward her salary and payment in lieu of notice
together with other relevant documents. The worker did not
receive this payment. The worker received no P.60 and her
P.45 was incorrect and had to be returned to the Company. She
had difficulty claiming unemployment benefit without her P.
60. The worker accepted her dismissal and subsequently
obtained other employment. However she feels that she has
been most unfairly treated in relation to her payment in lieu
of notice. The worker is also owed money in respect of
expenses incurred during weekly trips to the bank.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENT:
4. 1. The worker concerned was dismissed for a most serious
breach of Company regulations which involved signing another
Director's name on cheques. The worker was paid her statutory
entitlements and forms P.60 and P.45 were forwarded by post to
her last known address. The worker was not entitled to one
month's notice. Management's interpretation of her contract
of employment is that the one month's notice only comes into
effect if the worker successfully completed her probation.
She did not do so and one week's notice was the appropriate
payment. The worker has accepted the validity of the
Company's decision to dismiss her. She queried details on her
P. 45 and also holiday pay and mileage expenses. The Company
replied to these queries in writing. The Company also invited
the worker to attend a meeting to discuss any outstanding
issues. She did not attend. Management has treated the
worker in a fair manner. She is not owed any further monies
in lieu of notice. The Company is prepared to pay the worker
any mileage expense incurred.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is of the opinion that the worker concerned in this case was
treated with scant courtesy by the Management of the Company who
in this case are attempting to stretch the meaning of ordinary
language beyond any reasonable limits in order to avoid a clear
commitment to the payment of one month's pay in lieu of notice.
The Court recommends that the worker be paid the three weeks
balance due to her without further delay.
The Court also notes the agreement made during the course of the
hearing to pay the worker agreed estimated mileage expenses of 50
miles per week. This should also be paid without further delay.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
___________________
23rd December, 1991. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.