Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91458 Case Number: LCR13461 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: IRISH TOWNLANDS A-Z LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Dispute concerning money allegedly owed to the worker.
Recommendation:
7. The Court having considered the evidence presented to it, is
of the view that the claimant was employed by the Company for the
period 31st July to 13th August and is entitled to a gross payment
of £200. Accordingly the Court recommends that the Company make
this payment.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91458 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13461
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
PARTIES: IRISH TOWNLANDS A-Z LIMITED
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning money allegedly owed to the worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is an agent for computer systems and is based in
Fermoy, Co. Cork. It had an office in Dublin with one employee.
On 23rd July, 1991 that employee handed in her letter of
resignation. The worker was contacted by the Company and informed
that she was on a short list of candidates for interview (she had
handed in her C.V. to the Company at a graduate hiring fair in
April, 1991).
3. The worker secured the job and commenced employment on 30th
July, 1991. Her employer informed her on 12th August, 1991 that
her employment was being terminated as he was unable to secure
finance to pay her salary. The worker left the employment and did
not receive any salary for the fortnight she worked there.
4. The worker referred the issue to the Labour Court under
Section 20 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 for investigation
and recommendation. A Court hearing was held on 17th September,
1991. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's
recommendation. The worker did not attend or was represented at
the hearing. She subsequently wrote to the Court apologising for
her non-attendance and enclosing a written submission of her case
which was copied to the Company.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The worker, on enquiring about salary, was asked if she
was registered with Eolas. She confirmed that she was. She
was then informed that the matter would be sorted out later.
She then contacted a representative of Eolas who informed her
that her salary would be approximately £10,000 per annum, half
of which would be paid by Eolas.
2. On 12th August, 1991 the worker was informed by her
employer that owing to problems with his bank he would be
unable to pay her and that he would recommend her for
employment with another Company. She enquired with this
Company but there were no vacancies.
3. The worker was employed by the Company and an oral
contract existed. She is seeking two weeks wages and two
weeks pay in lieu of notice which she estimates to be £769.20.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. At interview the worker was informed that she was being
employed subject to the Company securing finance and sanction
from Eolas. As the Company was unable to secure finance, the
sanction from Eolas was not forthcoming.
2. The Company is not in a position to pay any money to the
worker. She was never informed that the employment was
permanent or was the question of salary discussed. As she was
unemployed it was assumed she was in receipt of unemployment
benefit/assistance and it was in order for her to acquire
product knowledge and training.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. The Court having considered the evidence presented to it, is
of the view that the claimant was employed by the Company for the
period 31st July to 13th August and is entitled to a gross payment
of £200. Accordingly the Court recommends that the Company make
this payment.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
___________________
31st October, 1991 Chairman.
M.D./J.C.