Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92622 Case Number: AD92233 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: BOLAND AUTO SALES LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Appeal by the worker against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. B.C. 237/92 concerning an alleged unfair selection for redundancy.
Recommendation:
I do not recommend reinstatement but I propose that the
Company should pay to the worker an exgratia sum of #300
by way of compensation for the loss of her employment
and the injury to her self esteem. I recommend
accordingly.
(The worker was named in the Recommendation).
3. The recommendation was appealed to the Labour Court by the
worker by letter dated 5th October, 1992 under Section 13(9)
of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court
investigation took place on 19th November, 1992 in New Ross,
Co. Wexford.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker received a net wage after deductions of #72 per
week. She had given satisfactory service to the Company until
its termination of her employment. The Company claimed that
her employment has terminated because of difficult trading
conditions but it hired another worker in a similar capacity a
few weeks later. The new worker is still employed by the
Company.
2. The worker feels that she was more than qualified for the
new position and it should have been offered to her even
though it carried a lower wage. The worker has not been able
to find alternative employment and is willing to accept the
Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. A down turn in business necessitated that the number of
workers in the main office be reduced by one. The number of
workers in the main office has not increased since then. A
new lower paid position arose in the garage department. The
Company did not think the worker suitable for the new
position.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is of the opinion that the Rights Commissioner was correct
in his conclusion. The Court therefore decides that, taking
account of the additional expenses incurred by the worker in
making the appeal the Recommendation should be amended to provide
compensation of #400 and that the Recommendation so amended should
stand.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92622 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD23392
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: BOLAND AUTO SALES LIMITED
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the worker against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. B.C. 237/92 concerning an alleged unfair
selection for redundancy.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The worker commenced employment with the Company in
February, 1991. The Company terminated her employment in
January, 1992 claiming difficult trading conditions.
2. The worker claimed that she was unfairly selected for
redundancy and referred the claim to a Rights Commissioner
for investigation and recommendation. The Rights
Commissioner's investigation took place on 17th August, 1992
and the following findings and recommendation issued on 7th
September, 1992:
"FINDINGS
Having investigated the matter and having given full and
careful consideration to the points made by both parties
I have come to following conclusions.
1. I am satisfied that the worker had a good record
with the employer during her period with the
Company.
2. I am also satisfied that it would have been
judicious and fair for the employer to have offered
the worker the opportunity to stay on with the
Company although at a lower rate of pay given the
severe downturn in business being experienced
3. The fact that this offer was not made to the worker
and that another employee was taken on subsequently
at a lower rate of pay does represent a degree of
unfairness towards the claimant.
4. I therefore deem the dismissal to have been unfair.
RECOMMENDATION
I do not recommend reinstatement but I propose that the
Company should pay to the worker an exgratia sum of #300
by way of compensation for the loss of her employment
and the injury to her self esteem. I recommend
accordingly.
(The worker was named in the Recommendation).
3. The recommendation was appealed to the Labour Court by the
worker by letter dated 5th October, 1992 under Section 13(9)
of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court
investigation took place on 19th November, 1992 in New Ross,
Co. Wexford.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker received a net wage after deductions of #72 per
week. She had given satisfactory service to the Company until
its termination of her employment. The Company claimed that
her employment has terminated because of difficult trading
conditions but it hired another worker in a similar capacity a
few weeks later. The new worker is still employed by the
Company.
2. The worker feels that she was more than qualified for the
new position and it should have been offered to her even
though it carried a lower wage. The worker has not been able
to find alternative employment and is willing to accept the
Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. A down turn in business necessitated that the number of
workers in the main office be reduced by one. The number of
workers in the main office has not increased since then. A
new lower paid position arose in the garage department. The
Company did not think the worker suitable for the new
position.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is of the opinion that the Rights Commissioner was correct
in his conclusion. The Court therefore decides that, taking
account of the additional expenses incurred by the worker in
making the appeal the Recommendation should be amended to provide
compensation of #400 and that the Recommendation so amended should
stand.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
__________________
8th December, 1992. Deputy Chairman.
J.F./J.C.