Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91278 Case Number: LCR13458 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: CRE IRISH PORCELAIN - and - A WORKER |
An appeal against Rights Commissioner's recommendation BC23/91 regarding the alleged unfair treatment of the worker.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties and the
additional oral evidence presented at the hearing, the Court does
not find grounds to alter the Rights Commissioner Recommendation.
Accordingly the Company should pay the claimant the sum of #200 in
full and final settlement of her claim.
The Court so decides.
The Court noted the Company undertaking given at the hearing to
provide the claimant with an suitable employment reference.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91278 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13458
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: CRE IRISH PORCELAIN
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. An appeal against Rights Commissioner's recommendation BC23/91
regarding the alleged unfair treatment of the worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures pottery and in association with this
activity operates a gift/coffee shop. The worker commenced
employment with the Company in May, 1990. She was initially
employed for a period of 2 weeks while the shop manageress was on
holidays. Subsequently she was asked to remain with the Company
in a part-time capacity, cleaning toilets and working in the
gift/coffee shop. Her hours of work were from 9.00 a.m. to 1.00
p.m. on 5 days per week.
3. The worker was let go in January, 1991 and a dispute arose as
to her treatment by the Company. The Rights Commissioner heard
the case on 3rd April, 1991. The Company did not attend the
hearing. The Rights Commissioner issued this recommendation
(BC23/91) on 30th April, 1991:-
"In the light of the above I recommend that Cre Irish
Porcelain pay to Monica O'Leary the sum of #200 and
that this be accepted by her in full and final
settlement of all claims on the Company.
By letter dated 20th May, 1991 and 28th May, 1991, the
recommendation was appealed to the Labour Court by the worker and
the Company respectively under Section 13(9) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court investigation took place in
Galway on 15th October, 1991.
WORKER ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was employed from May, 1990 until January,
1991 when she was let go after the Christmas break with no
prior notice. The hours of work were from 9.00 a.m. to
1.00 p.m. and her duties included cleaning the toilets and for
the most part working in the showrooms and coffee shop. Prior
to being let go the worker was told on a number of occasions
that her work was of a high standard and that if the coffee
shop became slack that she could do many other things. She
had been introduced to different types of work in the
workshop.
2. Difficulties arose when it was impossible for the worker
to leave the Company at 1.00 p.m. and on many occasions
circumstances forced her to remain at work until after 2.00
p.m. with no extra pay. Matters came to a head in November,
1990 when the worker sought a day off in lieu of the extra
hours worked. This was granted but without pay. A
disagreement ensued (details supplied) and subsequently the
worker felt that attitudes changed towards her which
culminated in her instant dismissal on 8th January, 1991
(details supplied). The coffee shop remained opened after the
worker had left the Company.
COMPANY ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was employed on a part-time basis only from
9.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. There was some difficulty in getting
her to cease work at 1.00 p.m. even though it was made clear
to her that she would not be paid after 1.00 p.m. The
decision to let the worker go was not taken lightly. It is
not company policy to treat staff in a careless manner. By
8th January, 1991, the business had been open for 2 weeks
after the Christmas recess and trade was very quiet in the
coffee shop and for the sale of gifts. The worker was
therefore not required until business resumed a normal level.
The worker was informed of this and a scene was created
prompting the request for her to "just go". The coffee shop
was closed 2 months later as it was only a hindrance to the
company's real business of selling pottery.
2. The coffee shop was a very small business, with a
turnover of an average #30-#50 per day. The worker was very
willing and despite disagreements (details supplied), she was
let go as a result of the fall off in trade. The Company did
not attend the Rights Commissioner's hearing because of a
misunderstanding as to whether the case was to go ahead.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties and the
additional oral evidence presented at the hearing, the Court does
not find grounds to alter the Rights Commissioner Recommendation.
Accordingly the Company should pay the claimant the sum of #200 in
full and final settlement of her claim.
The Court so decides.
The Court noted the Company undertaking given at the hearing to
provide the claimant with an suitable employment reference.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
6th November, 1991 ----------------
J.F./U.S. Chairman