Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91525 Case Number: AD91100 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: KEADEEN HOTEL LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Appeal by the worker against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. B.C. 232/91 concerning alleged unfairness in reducing her hours of work and compensation for loss of earnings.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made at the
hearing, is of the opinion that the amount of compensation
recommended by the Rights Commissioner is appropriate. The Court
therefore decides that the sum of £500 should stand.
In the light of the workers decision not to resume work the Court
further recommends that the Employer provide the worker with a
suitable reference.
The Court further recommends that the worker be paid monies
outstanding for all overtime and other premium time worked when
she was in full-time employment.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91525 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD10091
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: KEADEEN HOTEL LIMITED
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the worker against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. B.C. 232/91 concerning alleged unfairness in
reducing her hours of work and compensation for loss of earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned in this dispute was employed by the
Company as a casual worker in March, 1990. In October, 1990 she
was appointed to a full-time position, working as a waitress. In
July, 1991, the Company demoted the worker from her position as a
full-time waitress to that of a casual worker. The Company claims
that the worker ignored a number of warnings issued to her in
relation to her work performance. The worker refutes this claim
and referred the matter to a Rights Commissioner for investigation
and recommendation. The Rights Commissioner on the 12th
September, 1991 recommended as follows:-
"In the light of the above I recommend that the worker be
restored to a full-time position as waitress immediately and
that she be paid compensation of £500 in lieu of lost
earnings during the period of her demotion".
The worker rejected the Rights Commissioner's recommendation and
appealed it to the Labour Court on 30th September, 1991, under
Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court
heard the appeal on 29th October, 1991.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company offered to reinstate the worker after the
Rights Commissioner's recommendation issued. This is an
admission by the Company that the worker was wrongly demoted.
2. The Company claim the worker was not a qualified waitress.
The worker was paid a rate of pay appropriate to that of a
qualified waitress.
3. A trainee waitress would not be left to work alone in the
dining room. The worker has worked alone in the dining room
on numerous occasions.
4. Customers or management did not complain about the
worker's work.
HOTEL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker did not obey instructions given to her by her
supervisor.
2. The worker had disregarded all warnings issued to her and
made no attempt to improve her work performance.
3. The worker had difficulty working with a fellow worker.
4. The worker's manner was unsuitable to the hotel business.
DECISION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made at the
hearing, is of the opinion that the amount of compensation
recommended by the Rights Commissioner is appropriate. The Court
therefore decides that the sum of £500 should stand.
In the light of the workers decision not to resume work the Court
further recommends that the Employer provide the worker with a
suitable reference.
The Court further recommends that the worker be paid monies
outstanding for all overtime and other premium time worked when
she was in full-time employment.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
____________________
21st November, 1991 Deputy Chairman
F.B./J.C.