Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91269 Case Number: AD91116 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: O'SULLIVAN AND MAGUIRE LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's recommendation concerning termination of employment.
Recommendation:
4. The Court noted that the worker could not be contacted to
inform him of date and time of hearing. It was decided to proceed
with the hearing. The Court having considered the submissions of
both parties and the subsequent documentation supplied by the
Company is of the opinion that the Rights Commissioners finding
was fair and reasonable in all the circumstances.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91269 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD11691
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: O'SULLIVAN AND MAGUIRE LIMITED
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation concerning termination of employment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was employed as a waiter by the Company
from 25th October, 1990 to 10th January, 1991. The worker claims
that he terminated his employment due to constant pressure. He
worked approximately 60 hours per week without proper meal breaks
and was subjected to extreme rudeness from the management. The
worker claims he was due money when he resigned and that his P.45
which was issued by the Company, was incorrect. The Company
rejected these claims. The matter was referred to a Rights
Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. The Rights
Commissioner on 17th April, 1991 recommended as follows:-
"I recommend that the Company offers and the worker accepts
the sum of #240 in settlement of this dispute".
The Rights Commissioner's recommendation was rejected by the
Company who appealed it to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of
the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on
29th October, 1991. The worker was not represented at the
hearing. The Court was unable to contact him prior to the Court
hearing.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Management was not vexatious towards the worker.
2. The worker's P.45 is correct. Worker's tax free allowance
is greater than his gross pay and therefore is not due to pay
income tax.
3. The worker has received all monies due to him.
DECISION:
4. The Court noted that the worker could not be contacted to
inform him of date and time of hearing. It was decided to proceed
with the hearing. The Court having considered the submissions of
both parties and the subsequent documentation supplied by the
Company is of the opinion that the Rights Commissioners finding
was fair and reasonable in all the circumstances.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
___________________
23rd December, 1991. Deputy Chairman
F.B./J.C.