Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91334 Case Number: AD9178 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: PREMIER PROFESSIONAL COURSES LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Appeal by both parties of Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. B.C. 136/91 concerning compensation for loss of income.
Recommendation:
5. In all the circumstances of this case the Court considers that
the Rights Commissioner's recommendation should be upheld.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeals from both parties and so
decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91334 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD7891
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: PREMIER PROFESSIONAL COURSES LIMITED
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by both parties of Rights Commissioner's recommendation
No. B.C. 136/91 concerning compensation for loss of income.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was employed by the Company in 1982, as a
cleaner. She was paid on an hourly basis. The Company, which
provides professional education in banking, marketing and
accounting runs a College which operates both at night and during
the day. The worker concerned was employed for approximately 40
hours per week for the last number of years. In March, 1991, the
Company unilaterally reduced these hours to 24.5 per week. This
resulted in a significant loss of earnings for the worker
concerned who referred the matter to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. On 6th June, 1991, the Rights
Commissioner issued the following recommendation:
"Having investigated the matter and having given full and
careful consideration to the points made by the claimant and
having subjected her submission to very careful examination I
recommend that Premier Professional Courses Limited pay to
the worker the sum of £750 in compensation for the loss of
income resulting from the unilateral decision of management
in March, 1991."
(The worker was referred to by name in Rights Commissioner's
recommendation).
The recommendation was rejected by both parties who appealed it to
the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on 6th August, 1991.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Without warning the worker's hours of work were
unilaterally reduced. This was done by letter on 26th March,
1991. Despite numerous requests for a meeting with the
Director, none was obtained. During the period of the reduced
working hours, some of the duties formerly carried out by the
worker concerned, were undertaken by the office staff.
2. No complaint was ever received regarding the worker's
duties. The worker never received any recognition or
consideration for extra duties undertaken over the years e.g.
supervising examinations, office work, reception duties...
3. The keys of the premises, which the worker held for the
last 10 years, were taken from her without explanation. The
locks were changed and the worker was refused a new key.
During the last number of months the worker concerned was not
allowed in the office without supervision by one of the
lecturing staff. This was a slur on the worker's character
and integrity.
4. The worker concerned is appealing the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation on the grounds that the award is
inadequate given the reduction in earnings, the damage to her
reputation and mental anguish caused by the attitude and
treatment she has received from the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The new working hours were communicated to the worker
concerned by means of a meeting with the Director and by
letter. Her basic hours were set at 24.5 per week, although
this would increase to 26.5 hours per week during the busy
night time period from September to March, by the addition of
an extra hour on Tuesday and Thursday evenings.
2. The purpose of the change in hours was to directly relate
cleaning activity to the level of activity in the College and
to the hours in which rooms were available for cleaning. The
new work pattern was introduced at that time because of the
seriously deteriorating financial position in the Company and
because of the seasonal decline in activity in the College.
Changes in working hours has been a feature of past practice.
3. The Company, since mid 1990, has been facing severe
financial problems despite tight cost controls and intensive
marketing. Since May, 1991, all full-time staff, including
the worker here concerned, have been let go and the directors
are now in the final stages of selling the goodwill and assets
of the Company to a new Management team. The worker concerned
was paid her statutory entitlements.
DECISION:
5. In all the circumstances of this case the Court considers that
the Rights Commissioner's recommendation should be upheld.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeals from both parties and so
decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_______________________
3rd September, 1991. Deputy Chairman
B.O'N/J.C.