AD912

Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90599 Case Number: AD912 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: PETER O'BRIEN CATERING COMPANY LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION

Subject:
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. B.C. 146/90 concerning compensation being sought by two members of the Union on the termination of their employment.

Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the submissions of the parties
oral and written together with the report of the Rights
Commissioner does not find grounds to alter his recommendation.

Accordingly the Court upholds the Rights Commissioners
Recommendation.

The Court so decides.

Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Rorke

Text of Document__________________________________________________________________

CD90599 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD291

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)


PARTIES: PETER O'BRIEN CATERING COMPANY LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)

and

SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION

SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. B.C. 146/90 concerning compensation being
sought by two members of the Union on the termination of their
employment.

BACKGROUND:
2. The Company provides catering facilities on a contract basis
to a number of locations including race meetings. The two workers
concerned were employed on a casual basis at a number of
racecourse venues as sandwich makers. The nature of their
employment was that they were called up to work at a number of
locations by the Company on between 20 and 30 days per year. They
were not however called up to work during 1990 and accordingly the
Union sought compensation. Agreement was not reached locally and
the matter was referred by the Union to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation.

The Rights Commissioner, having investigated the dispute on the
21st September, 1990, issued the following recommendation on 8th
October, 1990.

1. Peter O'Brien Catering to make an ex-gratia payment to
each of the two workers of #250 each.

2. Peter O'Brien Catering to supply a satisfactory reference
to the workers.

The workers were named in the recommendation.

The Union rejected this Recommendation and appealed it to the
Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1969. A Court hearing was held on 26th November, 1990.



UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers concerned have been employed by the Company
since it was formed and have given long and loyal service to
ensure its success. They have been complimented on a number
of occasions on the standard and performance of their duties.
The manner and fashion of the termination of their employment
has caused them grave distress. Compensation on the same
terms as applied to another worker is being sought. The
particular worker had less service than either of the two
concerned with this dispute.


2. The Rights Commissioner in making his recommendation may
have been influenced by the statement of the Company that they
were no longer servicing the contracts where the two workers
were employed. This business has in fact not been lost to the
Company and in any case the two appellants have worked at all
contract locations operated by the Company.


COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The workers concerned have been employed on a casual basis
as sandwich makers for a number of years at race meetings
throughout the country. This activity has now been greatly
curtailed. Both of the workers were valued employees of the
Company who provided good service down through the years. The
Company always treated the employees well and had a good
relationship with them.


2. The Company decided that the formal working relationship
should cease. The Company accepts that another employee was
paid higher compensation than that awarded to the two
appellants. This was a personal arrangement and it was agreed
with the Union that it would not set a precedent. No other
similar payments have been made in the past.


3. Activities by the Company at race meetings have been
greatly reduced and it no longer provides a service at the
locations at which the workers were employed.


4. The Company is prepared to accept the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation.


DECISION:
5. The Court having considered the submissions of the parties
oral and written together with the report of the Rights
Commissioner does not find grounds to alter his recommendation.

Accordingly the Court upholds the Rights Commissioners
Recommendation.

The Court so decides.
~

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court


Tom McGrath
_______________________
15th January, 1991 Deputy Chairman.
J.F./J.C.