Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9112 Case Number: LCR13187 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: THE CUTTING EDGE HAIR SALOON - and - A WORKER |
Claim by the worker concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
Recommendation:
7. Having considered the submission of the parties the Court is
of the view that the claimant was redundant and accordingly should
be paid a sum equivalent to eight days' pay.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9112 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13187
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: THE CUTTING EDGE HAIR SALOON
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the worker concerning alleged unfair dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company which is located in Dublin has been in business
for 5 years and currently employs 5 people. The worker here
concerned was employed by the Company for a period of 14 months
and was in the second year of her apprenticeship.
3. On the 25th October, 1990 the worker was informed by
Management that due to lack of work it was necessary to terminate
her employment. The worker inquired about part-time work at the
week-ends. She was informed that the saloon could not afford to
employ her at week-ends.
4. The worker subsequently became aware that the saloon had
employed a full-time junior to replace her. She then referred a
claim for unfair dismissal to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. The Company declined an
invitation to attend a Rights Commissioner's investigation. The
worker then referred her case to the Labour Court under Section
20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The worker agreed to
be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Labour Court hearing
was held on 24th January, 1991.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The worker considers that she was unfairly dismissed as
Management employed somebody to replace her. She had worked
for the Company for 14 months and at no time had Management
made any complaints about her work performance.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. During 1990 the Company's trade declined. As a
consequence the Company made the worker here concerned
redundant. She was replaced by a first year apprentice as
the Company could not afford to retain a second year
apprentice.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. Having considered the submission of the parties the Court is
of the view that the claimant was redundant and accordingly should
be paid a sum equivalent to eight days' pay.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
18th February, 1991 Evelyn Owens
M.D./M.O'C. _______________
Deputy Chairman