Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91114 Case Number: AD9127 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: INVOTRON LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Appeal by a worker against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. B.C. 294/90 concerning alleged constructive dismissal.
Recommendation:
The Court having fully considered the oral and written submissions
of the parties does not find grounds to conclude that the worker
concerned was constructively dismissed from her employment on the
date in question.
Accordingly the Court overturns the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation and rejects the appeal of the worker. The Court
notes the co-operation afforded to the Company by the worker at
the time of the termination of her employment and in consideration
of this considers the payment of #750 made to the worker concerned
should be increased to #1,500.
The Court so decides.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91114 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD2791
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: INVOTRON LIMITED
(Represented by Pearse Mehigan & Company, Solicitors)
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by a worker against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. B.C. 294/90 concerning alleged constructive
dismissal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker commenced employment with the Company as a
part-time book-keeper on 28th November, 1988. She was initially
employed for one day per week. After a few months she agreed to
work five mornings (i.e. 20 hours) a week for a net salary of #125
per week. In May 1990, the Company reduced her hours of work to
16 per week with no change in salary. In September, 1990 the
Company decided the worker's post should be upgraded from
part-time to a full-time book-keeper/accounts technician post.
The Company, by letter dated 8th October, 1990, offered the full
time position to the worker at the salary of #12,168 per annum.
The worker rejected the offer and indicated that she was happy to
continue working in her part-time position. On 19th October, 1990
the worker's employment with the Company was terminated. She
received a reference, pay in lieu of notice, and an ex gratia
payment of #750. The worker claims that she had wanted to
continue her employment with the Company and that the changes in
pay and conditions imposed by the Company amounted to constructive
dismissal. The Company rejects the claim. The dispute was
referred to a Rights Commissioner who investigated it on
13th December, 1990 and issued the following recommendation on
8th January, 1991:-
"RECOMMENDATION
In the light of the above I find that the worker was
constructively dismissed from her employment on the date in
question since she was asked to accept significant and
substantial changes in her hours of work and in her rate of
pay. I do not recommend reinstatement but I do recommend
that Invotron Limited pay the worker an additional sum of
#2,000 and this be accepted by her in full and final
settlement of all claims on the Company in relation to the
termination of her employment".
(The worker was named in the recommendation).
The worker appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court under
Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court
heard the appeal on 27th February, 1991.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. During her employment the worker received assurances
regarding her position with the Company. She was regarded as
a valuable member of the staff and was appreciated for her
work. Although she was a part-time worker she received
verbal guarantees that she had a permanent future with the
Company. On that basis the worker had made personal
financial commitments. She was therefore shocked to learn in
late 1990 that the Company proposed to terminate her
part-time position.
2. There had been no major dispute regarding her level of
salary during her employment. When she requested a rise in
salary in 1990 the company decided to reduce her hours of
work rather than give her a pay rise. It was only when the
Company proposed to terminate her part-time position that a
dispute over pay levels arose. In return for working
full-time the Company offered her a salary which is
effectively lower than the salary she had as a part-time
worker. The Company knew that she could not be reasonably
expected to accept such an offer. The Company put her in an
impossible position by changing her conditions of pay and
service. She was therefore constructively dismissed by the
Company.
3. Due to her constructive dismissal the worker is at the
loss of a job and a regular income. She was treated unfairly
by the Company and her future work prospects have suffered.
She had not wanted to leave her job. The Company's ex gratia
payment of #750 is not sufficient and she should be
adequately compensated for her loss.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was originally employed by the Company in
1988 on a part-time basis. Towards the end of 1990 it became
increasingly apparent to the Company that, due to the
expansion of the business and the increased volume of
accounts generally, the worker's part-time position had grown
into a ful-time post. The Company decided to upgrade the
worker's position to a full-time one of book-keeper/accounts
technician and she was offered the new job. She rejected the
job offer and the Company therefore regretfully terminated
her employment.
2. The Company spent a number of weeks discussing the
proposed new full-time position with the worker in order to
reach some mutual agreement. The level of salary offered for
the new position was appropriate at the time. The Company
could not be reasonably expected to pay the worker more than
the generally accepted rate for the job. The Company has
subsequently filled the full-time position at a salary less
than that offered to the worker.
3. The worker carried out her duties very well and the
Company was happy to offer her a full-time position. She was
treated fairly and the Company gave her a written reference
together with an ex gratia payment of #750. The worker has
received adequate compensation.
DECISION:
The Court having fully considered the oral and written submissions
of the parties does not find grounds to conclude that the worker
concerned was constructively dismissed from her employment on the
date in question.
Accordingly the Court overturns the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation and rejects the appeal of the worker. The Court
notes the co-operation afforded to the Company by the worker at
the time of the termination of her employment and in consideration
of this considers the payment of #750 made to the worker concerned
should be increased to #1,500.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
27th March, 1991 Tom McGrath
A.S./M.O'C. _______________
Deputy Chairman